UOI v. Shri Roop Ram & Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orderssee LA.App.No.1195/2008,titledas 'RanbirSharmavs. Unionof India & Anr. \ JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb GAUR) JUDGE ,/ 'i-': n IN THE iOGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MservedoJV_NqyM^2he^^ Fronotinced on: Jamiary ()^ 2(li2 (GRID-A) V LA.APP.1195/2008(VILLAGE-IBHARTHAL) ' I RANBJRSHARMA. Appellant Through:' Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.l?.S.Verma,Mr.JitinTewathia,Advocates Mr.AiiandYadav and Ms.AnitaTomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, AdA'ocate. . ^ Mr.Raglmvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr,H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.RouIand Mr.B.K.Routray.,Mr.M.AzamAnsari. Advocates. Mi-.PankajVivek, Advocate Mr.Rajcsh Yadav.Hr.Dccpak Khosia,Mr.SamitKhosia and Mi'.Dhanaajay Mchla-\^'at,Advocates Mr.li.S.R.autela,Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.SandeepThakh'ur.Ad^'ocate Mr.Atul Tripathii Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Ranlela,(.Vdvocalesior respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) versus •UNION 01^ INDIA& ANR. Respondcnvs Ihrough; Mr.SanjayPoddur,SaiiorAdvocatewiiii Mr.Sanjiiy Pathak,Mr.Mofiitrao;adh;t\-and M.^.Na\'iinSwain." Ms-.K.KaunuidiKirari,Advocatesfor I.AC/UOI Mr.AjayVeni?.a,Ms.BeenashaAvSoni. Mr.Mukcsh K-umar,Mr S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal ShanriH, Advocate foi- {)l)A !..^.APP.4!^/2008& CM.No,4096/200S fCross-Objections).f.A.APP.4S^/9nO(S-LA.APP.453/20O8;LA.APP.688/2008A; (:MMo.5990/20J0 fCross-CVoiedion;;)' p-Vn''(f-'"os,s-0bjectio.ns); LA.APP.70i/2()()8& M.No,510,^.009 (Cross-(,)bisction:!;: 1., V,APi'^76f5/200S; !.A.AFP.77()/2Un!j; I.A.App.Wo. &conncctedApponlsof Vtlliigr;Bhiiri{i:.il iA.Aop. No. /94/7()ao&corinori.edAppc.jlsof Villaj^obiiwtiijn IA.Anp. Ili/:>ni0&connpcuidAppcaiiof Viilafjc;rothanpur PaKt' 1. (ji 7:-^ LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objectians); 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.798/20Q8 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & .CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 fCross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.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.779/20n (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 8l -^CM.No.799/2009. (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.9]5/2008; LA.APP.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; [.A.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009' (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Crosfj-Objcctions);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.l7335/2008(Cross-Objections); LA-A'PP-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.1052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008& 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.1557/201 1 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections); J.A.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-Objeclions); L.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objection3); LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-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.APP.1095/2008; I.A.APP.1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No:3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 109/2008: LA.APP.ll 10/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM;No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1115/2008; LA.APP.1116/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008; FA.APP.]126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009fCross-ObjccIions); LA.APP.II30/2008;LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.ILi3/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008.& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objeciions); LA.APP.l137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008fCross-Objections);LA.APP.l140/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008;LA.APP.1157/2008;LA.APP.1158/2008& CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l16172008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.l170/2008; LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.1173/2008; LA.APP.11 75/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; LA.APP.1179/2008;L'V.APP.1181/2008' LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections);' LA.APP.l184/2008; LA.APP.l185/2008; LA.APP.l186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 iA.App. No. 3195/7008& connocledAppealsofVilltigeOharthal l-A ApD. No. Z91/7.0T0& connccledAppealsofVillageDijwasgn I.A.App.Nq..i.1l/."'.010&conneclecfAppealsofVillagGPochaiiDur'' • " ' ' ' Pape2ol'29 % (Cross-Objcclioiis); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008 LA.APP.l 193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP.1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.12i0/2008; LA.APP.I211/2008 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 r.A.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008 LA.APP.l280/2008; 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 & CM,No,7] 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 l.A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP. 108/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009 I.A. APP. 140/2009 rA.APP. 162/2009 LA.APP; 197/2009 LA.APP.202/2009 (Cross-Objcctions; LA.APP.2] 1/2009 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.511/2009 LA.APP.572/2009 l.A.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 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.970/20] LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2b09; LA.APP.245./2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009;' LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.13/20]1: I..A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LX.APP.480/2009; A.AFP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009: lA.APP.5I3/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP.l 138/2008; 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.7206/2009 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.l 176/2008 ./V.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.i0(30)/96/L&B/LA/i3417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the I.and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRIO-B) Reserved on: December

¶082011 Pronounced on: January 06. 20}2 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). • DiiVHNDER KUMAR Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Jomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App.No 1195/;?008&conneclcciAppealsofVillageBharifial iA.App,No. 294/2010& conncclodAppealsofVillagoBijwasan LA.App No. 111/2010& connectodAppoalsofVillage Pochanpu: Pago 3 of 29 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and. Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay.Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr-Sanjav Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadha^^ an^d Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K',Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOL • Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 ill appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010 LAAPP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 r..A.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LAAPP. 283/2010 LAAPP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296./2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 i.A.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LAAPP. 406/201-0 • L.A.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP.964/2010 LA.APP.,286/2010 LA.APP.77/2010 LAAPP. ',80/2010 LA.APP.75/2010& C.M.No.964/2011(Ci L,i^.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LAAPP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP.-277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP.-289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 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.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/20J0 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732,/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & oss-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.i0(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. 1195/2008& connectndAppealsofVillaeoDharthnI •• LA.App. No. 291//010&conncictedAppoalsof Village;Bijwasan uA.App.(Mo. llj/2()10&conneclcdAppt?alsofVillagePochafipL;r ' • / ' " ' p .4 T., 'iv- (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 .A.APP. 1]1/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEI-IAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-I6, 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.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents N4r.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak; Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain. Advocates for U0I/1.AC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharniaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.A1»P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. 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.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 154/2010 . 165/2010 ,.248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 • 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP LA:APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. [.A.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ,LA.APP. LA.APP. LA:APP. LA.APP. la.app. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2'010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . •117/2011 129/2011 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. . 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 i.^.App.No. ].195/2008&contifictodAppealsof VillaRoBharihal l^.Vp.No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVtllagoBijwasan U;App No 111/2010&connpclodAppealsofVillDBRPochanpur. (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/I3417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR .ORDER

06.01.2012

¶1Since the groundson which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcrelorcwith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearmg of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NolijicalionNo.F.I0(30)96-L&B/LA/B4'17dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and 1ochanpui are beingdisposedol bj' this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof •i:h\>arka Phase- •] ^ // in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13''' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the, Land Acquisition Act. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Hstates^includingvillages in question, i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellanis herein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting TOmpensatipn@?13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12,32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(AA'ithoutop soil). , , ,

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheiracquired I.A.(\pp.fJo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •A.App, No. 29d/?.010&connacledAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connoctPdAppealsofVillagpPochsnpiit \' agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of - the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Couil: vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ^15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ^13.36 lacs per acrc for i their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees 'fhiity lacs per acre by relying upon the prcccdcnts in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer^ Kamataka Housing Board Land Acquisition Offlcerj Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; AnjaniMolu Dcssai State ofGoa and Am\^

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors State ofHaryana and Am\,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) S: Ors,, (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Am% ra. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs V5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaoit, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs ys. Union ofIndia Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana A Ors., 20J0(9) SeALR 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab Ors.^ 2011 (9.) SeALIi 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCe 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sahha d Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOffices^ Anr 1^5-. M.IL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 see 714; ThakarsihhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer^ iA.App.No. 31<?fj/7008& cunnocLodAppealsofVillageSharlhai '.A.App. No ?.9l/7.0i0& connaclodAppoalsofVilla^RDijwasan iA.App. No 1]1/201.0S connrctf'dAppealsofVillagePochanpur I PaRo7of29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175;RisalSingh& Ors. Vs.. UnionofIndia& Ann, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd v.y. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 20|11 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238' Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361; W,P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Pelhi DevelopmentAuthority & Ann, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs v.f. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushi!Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

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

(170) DLT 371. I

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,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 m order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area overaperiod of tune and the samecannotbe limitedto the near iliturealone. by Mr.R.S,Tomar,couasel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rcwari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi •A App. No. i,D5/20G3&conn.c.odAppealsofVillage[ih.nha! ./^PP.No. 29/1/2010&coonociodAppealsofVillage[Jtjwosan .A.App.No. in/201(} conmicuidAppealsofVi||£iBt!Pochynpu^ Pape 8 of 29 , • t and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road JOO meters wide starting from NH-8 from Sbiv Muiti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension ol IGI Airport in the year 1971 arid again in the year 1980 for establishingIndian Oil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 lor 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 drawnto the aks sizras/m-^x^to highlightthat the boundary ol 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 in view ofthe 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. l.A\,App.No. liy5/:^008&connoclf?dAppealsofVillageBhDrlhal !,A.App,.No.294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillafjeBijwasan i.A,Arip.fJ().111/;:010&contiRcladAppealsof VillagePochanpur PapcSofZS Redd,&Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged kcepmg mview the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and'if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot mean thatthere is no buildingpotentiality. ]0. Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight .^ that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom. ?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 exemplarsarc overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMain Dessain. StateofGoa <'-dAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates tor detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.- . n. Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquiredland was sought bv Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of prc-deteimmed rates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternafe plots ,n the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is I-A-Ari Z'fiufAo^ appealsof .10&connectedAppRaisofVillagePochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamallcliaor alternativelyon the basis of'theL& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the 'basis of the Pre-Detcrmined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpuiseIndiaPrivateLimited of.LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds;- a) "Ignores the acknowledgementon the part of the respondent about the AM>ard sN^o.26/2002-2003dated ^3.JO.2002 being flawed m the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellani dated

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land. AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. t c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordance with the la.w laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe 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 be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunder.acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Paiil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Llonble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowmghigherrate should,not be disregardedin l^.App. No, 119V2008& conniici.odAppealsof VillageUharlhsl i.A.App. No. 294/2010&connficlndAppealsofVillagGBijwasan lAApp.No. .111/2010&conn(!cUdAppealsofVillagePochannur Papellofzs ' case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai V5. 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 V 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/2006to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land, is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and "^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v.v. State of Haryana 2010(1) ^ SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment -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 I 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 Governmentfor 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 respectof the 74^'"'amendment of the'Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by vii'tue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land, is situated, was deemeda 'municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor _ 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 cmd Anr vs. Union of India and.refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpayfor the.subjeci land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 -had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connocledAppc>alsofVillageBharthal LA.App. Mn. 29'IAOIO&connoclodAppealsof VillageBijwa'ian lA.App, No. 111/2010&connccU;dAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pg of 29 auctioned similarly situated, land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the _. • pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into ciccountthe possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land althoughthe land was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reitetated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be Qgi icultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality^of the said land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(2010) 3see. 661 it was heldthat thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While • ' determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto he used foi buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future ' ^ needs to be considered. m.) Ihe 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 acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportionojthe 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 aprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunch ofappeals.

¶14Suppicmentmgthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof UA.App. No. 1195/2008&conni>ctedAppealsofVillageBharlhal lAApp. No. 294/2010&connccledAppealsof ytllagt;liijwasein No. 111/2010&connoctedAppealsof VtllagRpochanpur # urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh DattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapU Mehra (Major Genera!)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Couil to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Ihus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthat thoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence [or determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageeic. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect maikct value ofthe acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLa! • vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, SatpalA Ors vs. Union of . India, (1997) 11 SCC 423;; Lai Chand v^". Union ofIndia and Ann,

(2009).15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.20-11,it was urged that sharp increase in price mashortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for ;5uch sharp increaseare explained by producingin evidence the seller LA•App No. 1195/2008&connecK-dAppealsof VillageBharthal •l^.App. No. 294/7.010&connectedAppealsofVillatjeBtjwasan lA.App. No. ra/?.010&connectedAppealsofVillaRGPochanpur ' ' - Pafio 14 of 29 and die purchaseras no prudentperson having laiowledgeof the usual .i prevalenttrendin the marltetwouldpay 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 that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DcterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) ^vhich has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SushilKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So Xai 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 1 Apii], 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon,@ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted . thatthere is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10o/" per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidaiceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is thepricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling ^A.App. Na 1195/2008&connoctooAppealsofViltegeDharth,I . pp. No. 111/2010£, mnnsHBdAppsabot villagePochanpu^ PagGl5ol'29 r\ seller and the best evidence is the eomparable sale instanees. While deahng with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haiyana S: Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial;^industrial, educational, religiousor any other kindof importanceor because oj its explosivepopulation;

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

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingM^aterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thai land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

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

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredland,or the acquiredland itself being in -demandfor .budding purposes, to specify afew. " '

¶18Ihe potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. For the said purpose,,theCourt may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for iA.App. l\lo. 1195/2.008&conneclcdAppealsof VillageDharlhal l-A.App. No connGclcdAppealsof VillageI3ijwasah 1-A.App.No. 111/2010&connecladAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pap.o 16 of 2!9 which the lands were sought to be acquh'ed 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 ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in AtinaSingh (supra)that the*exemplarsof small pieces of land relied ^ upon by the appellantscould not be a ground to discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer Anr vs, -MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714Ihe legalpropositionv/hichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference eithci in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similaily situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards tuture prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands 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 agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto Vvith advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal(Supra),while takingnote 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 Coiirt in AnjaniMohi Dessai(Supra) deserveattention,which are as under:- •App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillagpBhartfi3l IA.App. No. 294/2010&conneclodAppealsofVillagoBijwssan IA.App, No. 111/2010&connodcdAppealsofVtllagaf'ochanpur "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars Mnth reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several soles ofsimilar lands yvhoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of iM'o sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they ore y\nth 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 worlhwhilc to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Pad! (Supra), which are as follows:- "// is well settled that genuine and bona fide sole transactions in respect of the land, under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sole transactions proximate to the point, of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired, lands possessing similar vahe or utility token place betW'een a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between J^easonalileprudent persons , acting in the normal market conditions ore the real basis to determine the market value.

¶23Principles to determine the market value of t]ie acquired-lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and NafiivalGas CorporationLtd,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Prlmarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availabilityoj land,for developmentin the area, and-the demand for l.a.nd in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectoj development in the vicinity, increase in prices'would be slow, steady and ' gradual,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. lA.App. No. 1195/.yj08& connt'cledAppRalsofVillage;BharUial i-A.App.No. ?.94/2010& connGctodAppealsofVillafjcBijwasan l.A.App.No. l]l/201fiSconnftctedAppoalsofVilluRGPochar.pur pgggigofg 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 H escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in ^ increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nii^eiies, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor 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 market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value oj nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedbysale ti^ansactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneoussale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably-safe where, the^ relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour to-fiveyears. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even ij it relates to a neighbouring land. What may he a reliablestandardif the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and Unreliable standard whefe the gap is larger. Tor example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual• increase method with rejerence to a sale or lAApp. No. 1195/2008& connficledAppealsofVillageBhartha! . iJ^.Apo.No. 291/2010&connfictedAppealsofVillagoBijwasan lAApp No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePocfianp-jt acquisitionin 1970 or 1980may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pi ices Of suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease. " •. '

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictum ofthe Apex Courtin StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding , computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales metliods;What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- 'Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldhe avoided and a tiniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor - alllandsacquiredunderthesame notification." ^-^i^t-'tisputedly,in these appeals saJe 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 vjde which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwamiSatsang.Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpar at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acrc.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW-I/4to lix.PW-l/l0)which arc basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Bean in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochaiipurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answeied. lividently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds AApp. No. 2S.V2010&connciclQdAppoalsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. ni/2030& connnctadAppealsofVillagGPochanpur nt) # 9; (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thei-eby, the entire land of the sale exemplais—Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-I/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same maiketprice.Itwas dependentupon the natureand situationof 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 exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4toEx.PW-l/lO)has not been biought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.'Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got eitamined, then it could have been ehcjted Irom hun as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25"' March,2000 was also subjectmatterin lA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.201,1 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh w. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and mthe aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe ti'eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatter, though the land use of the acquii'edlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their, acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having'knowledge of prevailing lAApp.No. 1J95/2008&conncctodAppealsof VillageBharthal AApp. No. M4/2010&ronnectcdAppealsofVillageGijwasan IA.APP.No. 111/20,10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 (Ivx.PW-1/4 to Iix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalldia(Bx.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Salc.Deedof 27^'' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Hx.PW-1/11)was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (I'vX.PW-l/l1) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon includingtube well, boring,fitting, fixture, lane, by-lanc,etc., therefore, it had fctched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question.

¶29I.efl with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice ofsimilarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whetheradoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Prc-DcterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition;Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthoriiyHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in eitherof the said cases whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedby saleofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood lA.App.No. 119rD/?,OOS&i:onnGrtc;dAppfialsof Village Bharthal i.A.App.No. 294/201,0&connccieclAppealsofVillaRc IJfjwiisan IA.App. No, ,111/;'.010ft connciclcdAppealsofVillaROPochanpur PaRo 22 of 29 oryvhetherithe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby sale,ofbuddingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetched,by the.salesofplots in the layouts, . reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act.Further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, ' then what could be 'done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto ' be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase,to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out accordingto its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such building potentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales oj buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland, indicatinglhat there was no immediate dem.and, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the • • acquired land. "

¶31In view pf the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land cliarged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agricuJturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chaitd (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment lates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand(Supra),acoordinate.Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) . and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded,the DDA |-ates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of •tA.App. N...n9V2008&conn.clodApp.Dl,,ofVillafit,L'harlh.l .Mpp. No, ?fM/20].0&connoclcd Appeal.-;of Village!Rijwusar. lA.App.IM(,.l]i/20]0&connecledAppealsofVrllaaGPochanpur PaRe 23 of 29 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallands in question. -52-. Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue ofthe land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBhaithaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat tlic compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the yeai 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant NotiHcationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase4I,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the 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 La! Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt piogressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland'onlywhen the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even jf it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a rohablestandard,ifthe gap^is ofonly ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarka Phase-Iand Dwarka Phasc-IIIS of sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App, No. ]19V2008&connoclcdAppealsof Villci^eBha.-thal A.App. No. 294/2010&connmodAppealsofVillageflijwasan '-A.APP.No. 111/2010&connocfodAppealsof VillagePochanpuT escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears. 34, Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has , . granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwaiTanted as a cooidinatcbench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. Alter having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiahty of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the mattci,the cross-objectionsol the respondentare dismissed. j5. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's mmuiuimprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe mai-ket value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%.per annum granted by the RcfeienceCouit from the date of fixationol the minimum price for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. 1'^ April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not. j6. Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertamnig to the Notification in question has been assailed by the , learned counscl for appellantsbccaiisethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agiiculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24''' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be uj ban. It IS true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994t:hc land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbiitthatby itselfis not sufficientto IA.App.No.]195/2dCfi&connGctedAppenlsofVillagGBliarthiit* ' ' 1AApp. No. IWpmo conneclodAppenisof VillageBijwasDn I-A-APD.No. 3U/20i0&connaclndAppealsol VillagePochanpur PafieZS of 29 m 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 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 Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been uicrcasein pricedue 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 •n question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land , A mVillage Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldaa (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Sn>a..iSausang. Beas mVillage Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof 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 y sale instances. Therefore, in viev/ of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation ISIDQ (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded ior the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the. -mmum price fixed by the Govei.mentfor the agriculturalland in ne,hi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher • potentiality,Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what . ^ Appeal,ofViNa,e8«n NO. 1.11/20.10&connociadAppealsofVillagePochc,npm • 26 of 29 #/• would be cxpected to be the market growth and what the market had actuajly grown, Government's mmimurnagricultm'alprice has been held to be'reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired . lands in Jai Singh (Supra),as well as inSushil Kumar (Supra)and I End no reason to take a different view than,the one which had been taken hy coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Smgh (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 has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question. I'indingofthe ReferenceCourt in matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation oi the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof Che IGT Airport,Indian Oil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide.roadstarting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity ot the acquiredlands has somehow missed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof this Court, on accountof aloiesaidlocationaladvantages,the acq'uiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotbtialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant IQ% increaseover and abovemarket ^ value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the t/>.App, No. .U95/2008&connocledAppealsofVillage:BhijrUial lyv.App.No. 294/2010&connecledAppealsof VillaBOBijv.'asan lA.App. No; m/2010&conneclodAppealsof ViliaRoPochanpur Pago 27 of 29 m . settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Naushe,-wanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- . . When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup bmldingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto account the increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiaJity."

¶39Consideringthe fait that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases',whichpersuadesmc to treatthem wiUi equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of. the acquired lands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Smhil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10%;increaseover and abovethe ' market:valueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby theReferenceCourtin ^ these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question. ^

¶40Accordingly,these appeals arc partly'allowed to the extent of . awarding10% increaseoverand abovetl.c marketvalueassessedby the' ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bywasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpuratparwil appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof' ^ •-: . ' • , PP -& connectedAppealsOfVillagePochanpur ^ Page 2S of 29 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthese threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^^^rthe Category A' land and @?14,69,600/-per Ijigha for the Category lands in question.

¶41On the aloresaid enhancementdn the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001' (93) DLT 569 are giantc;d,excepttor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, lor N\'liichperiodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶421he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in thd aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar (jcncral ol this Court, to the concerned,ReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb IaT T' ^ connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AA T ^ connc!cledAppealsofVillageBijwasan W.App.No. Ul/2010&connecledAppealsofVillagoPochanpur (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE w.-,- Cnl =1= IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ^AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant ' Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash, • • Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Vernia, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mi-.H-S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.KRoutray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mi-.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mi'.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mi'.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, ,1- • Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shanna and ' Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. COl^M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER ' 7o

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For corrcction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice iA;App.No.11(95/2008 Page1 r." 4 i ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis 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 al-oresaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis Mlowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph ao: 40 of LA.App,No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbecarriedout forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb • riL2' A.App.No.1195/2008 j-- Page 2

<3.- * % -f- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 'H. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 495/2009 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 LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA versus SHRI ROOP RAM & ORS Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin 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 Respondent