Azad Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No.1195/2008,titled as 'RanbirSharma vs. Unionof India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb ;UNIL GAUR) JUDGE % IN Tim HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ' Reserved on: November 18. 201] Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 \ (GRID-A) I ! LA.AEP.1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA Appellant jrhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita ; Maan, Mjr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin TcAvathia, Advocates ! Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.^\nita Tomar, Advocates. ; Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. I Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate I Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Pvautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiitray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. ! Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Kliosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlavmt, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate • - Mr.I.S.Dahij^a, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thalchun Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rauteia, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOl) versus imon OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithVlr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.KHumudiKiran,AdvocatesforJ.AC/TJOI Mr.AjayVerma, Ms.BeenashavvSoni, Mr.Ivlukesh Kumar,M;.S.K.Setlii,Alr.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma. Advocate fbi* DDa LA.APP|.412/2008& CM.No.4096/2008 rCross-Objcctioiis)'i.A APP 452^2008" LA.APiVi53/2008;LAAPP.688/2008& CM,No.S990/20I0(Cross-ObieclionsV LA.APfl.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.y\PP.701/2008& CM.No.S10/2009 (Cross-ObjectipiisJ; LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; U.App. No. liys/2C0«,&connectedAppealsof VillaEeBharUisI I^.App. No. 294/2.010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IA.App. No. l;Ll/?.010Sl. con'iiecladAppealsofVillaRopochanpur 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.APPj777/2008;LA.APP.782/2008& ,CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections)' LA.APPi783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008;LA:APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APPl799/2008 & CMNo931/2009 (Cross-qbjections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008& CM'.No.1,795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LAjAPP.814/2008 & CM No 806/2009 (Cross-0|bjections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP820/2008-LA.APP.^9/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP,833/2008-LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APP.873/2008 & CMNo779/9011 r LA.APP.892/2008& ,CM.No.799/2009(Cross-Obiections)- cCltr LA.APP.90l/2008;LA.APP.:915/2008;LA.APP.951/2008& (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008-T ^ CM.No.519.''2009(Cross-Objections);LA,APP.975/2008; rr ni LA.APP|.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Oyections);LAAPP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.17340/2008' (Cross-0 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. - -..-x X /J4U//UU5 h 17335/2008(Cross-Objections); 032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009(CrossJ-Objections);LA.APP 1046/2008" CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections),' l A CM.No.420/2009(CrossjObjections);LA.APP.1050/2008' Tv Ann"^ ^ CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-Objections);LAAPP 10'^2/'^008' CMNoiSn LA.APP.p35/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.NOJ52/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP;i058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP,1059/2008& CMNo 172^9/200f?('rrn<;Q ^ LA,APP, O6O/20O8;LA,APP.1O62/2OO8& CMNc54S9 So LA.APP,1073/2008;LA.APP.1074/2008& CM>^^ 623^09 Co O't." ' & CM No 2448/2f)nR (Cross^Objections);LA.APP,10K6/2tJ08 CMNolS^OOrrr LA,APP,1|09/2008; LA,APP.l110/2008& CMN03S09^ZTnu'T'^'l'L^-APP-1?»/2008;LA.APP.1112/2008& UM.IM0J8J1/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CMNo3826/2009 I "rPpKron^« LA.APPJ1116/2008;LrAl^mS' LA.APP.1137/2008& CM No 17283/2008 LA.APP.11170/2008-LA APP lI7i/9nn» ^ P^J^^^ions),LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.nSo8lIS" LA.APP.1173/2008: LA.APP.1182/2008-LA APP 1183/700^'^ LA.APP.l181/2008; --App.nw,; loccedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 2 of 29, % (Cross-qbjections);LA.APP.n90/2008;LA.APP.!191/2008-LAAPP 11Q9/9nns LA.APP1193/2008;LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.ARP.-II9SlI'1??; SS J^A APpilloMOOs'^r LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP.[1202/2008,LA.APP.1203/2008;LA.APP,1210/2008'LA APP 19n/9nnfi CMS3?4monQ?r'' ni LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& ™APPbvs/Zs r LA.APP.l!i243/2008;LA.APP.1252/2008 LA APP bsSs' no ' LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.1279/2008 LAAPpil/2009 7AAPP LA.APp.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/2008 LA APpi2/2009'^ I^A.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA APP 7-^/9nnQ ^ ? (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 TAAnnCM.No.71Q3/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.N0I953/2OI1 crrn'^«:-nhippt;r» ^ LA.APP.^08/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.I-21/2009* " LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.I37/2009; LA.APP 138/2009' LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP.144/2009-LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; LA APP 190/2009-LA.APP.1197/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APP."l99/2009' LA.APP.203/2009;LA.APP.208/2009& Cross-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009& CM.No.970/2011 T1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009-CP LA.APP.230/2009& fCross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP245/2009- •LA.APP.2^9/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP295/2009-' LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.447/2009-T LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009-A.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP4.^1/2009' LA.^P.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP503/'>009-LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP509/2009-LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.512/2009: LA.APP513/2009" LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA A^P4S-LA.APP.13/20I1; LA.APP.lbs/2008-' - -APP-n|77/2008;LA.APP.120I/2008;LA.APP.23l!i2009' i • ' y . (Relatingjo NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13 12 2000 (GRID-B) LA.APP.135/2009 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.1176/2008; Resery_ed'on:December OH. ?njl Pronouncedon: January06^ 70/7 LA.APP.2?4/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) U1£WNDERKUMAR - _ j • Appellant Through; Mr.R.S.Tomar!Mr.VirendraSingh W-App No.ll9S/2008iconnectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •*pu. Wo. J..1,2010a connectedAppealsofVillagePochanppr Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanld and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Ro|utfay, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38; 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) •s'ersus UOI & ANR LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LAAPP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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 1727/2010 |750/2010 j964/2010 177/2010 !75/2010& i ; Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC;. Mr.S.K.Solanld 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 [BiharSharmaj Mr.Kunal Sharma and'Mr.Somer K.Seth. Advocates forDDA. I LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 11/2010 53/2010 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 LA.API3. LA.XPP. LA.APP. la.Xpp. la.Xpp. LA.XP^^ LA.XPp. la.Xpp. LA.API^ LA.APP. LA.XPP. LA.APP. LA.Xpp.. la.Xpp. la.App'. LA.AP1^ la.Xpp. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 49/2010 54/2010 59/2010 223/2010 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 725/2010 731/2010 764/2010 364/2010 99/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cros's-objeCtions) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. •LA.APP. LAAPP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APV. LAAPP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010-226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 34572010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&'B/LA/i3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No.

28./2002-2003;VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND IA.App. No. 1195/2008Si connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal i/»-App.No. 29.4/P.OlO&jconnectedAppealsofVillageOijwasan tA.App. iMo. 311/7.010&^connectcdAppealsofVillagePochanour (GRID-C) t Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 J.A.APP.1111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) I i SEPIAJRAM AND ORS. Tlirough: Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.SoIanldand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to-26529, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.;61ii 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav.Advocatefor appellant in R-22) j j versus UNIONQFINDIA ANR Through; 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.AI>P. nil/2010 1^0/2010 22,8/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 • 919/2010 65/2011 I2Q/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536^201] 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 " A No U/2010! " \ Ul/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Respondents Mr.SanjayPo|ddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKiimkrPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavIinSwain,Advocates forUOI/LAC| Mr.BankeyBih^iSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. I LA!APPM55/2nHl C^.APP. LA.APP. la.ai|p. LA.APP. LA.Afjp. LA.APP. LA.APP.. LA.APR LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP; 209/2010 261/2010 305/2010 (392/2010 i397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 ?84/2010 fl/201I 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.A ::^PP. 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. 56/2010 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 % (Relating; to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,IVillagePochanpur,Delhi) I CORAM; HON'BIJeMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR ORDER' i " ;

06.01.2012 | I ' I

¶1Since the groundson which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417^dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages 'sharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpu;are beingdisposedofby this commcinorder. I '•

¶2Accjuisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarlaiPhase-IJ in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notificationof 13"' December. 2000 under Section 4of the Lan^ AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertammgito vast ti-act of agricultural land.Mn one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenueEstates includingvillages in question, i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochaiipur. | '

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstpod acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Awarp No.26/2002-2003: Award No.2S/2002-2003;andAward No.j0/2002-2003granting compensation@' ?13.82 lacs per acre for •Block 'A' Klevel field-with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith tiie assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired 1-A.App.Wo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal A.pp NO.294P.010&connectedAppLlso,Villa eBwal' . I. IAAPP.NO.U1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i ^ i . Page 6of29 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgiTienthad enhanced compensation @ i?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' anli @^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 enhancemerit of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions; in Executive Engineer^ Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors.j (2Cjll)2see 246;AnjaniMoluDessaivs. StateofGoa andAnr.,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) ikrough LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition) Ors,, (2010)3 See 66]: RanvirSingh and Anrl vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se'3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased)through LRs, Union ofIndia & Ann, f ' 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass V5. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) ,SeALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) ' I SCALE 362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. Siai^ ofMaharashtra,(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of . Haryanci&Anr, (2008)2SCC 568; W.p|.(e)No. 4143/2003titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Of% decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand'AcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. \M.K RafiqSaheh, (2011) 7 see 714, ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs". ExecutiveEngineer^ lA.Apo No. ll9;i/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App.No. ;.0rt/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. U1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ^ ' or' . PajjQ 7 Qf 29 Gujarat, and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors, Vs. Union 6fIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Anr.j (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Managerj Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd va". Rameslthhai Jivanbkai Patel and Am\ (2008) 14 SCC;745; ValUyammaland Anr V5. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 jSC 2937; Kiran Tandon v^. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh ' ' '' Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; I I Kapil Mehra (Major General) S. Ors, Vs.: Union of India & Anr, 176(201;1)DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh V5". I Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., Idecided on 24.04.2008; Om I PrakasH,(dead) by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; I ' Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. JJnion of Indian decided on

26.09.2Cill;LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled!as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRain vs. Union ofIndia,2010

(170) DLT 371. '

¶6On the strengthofthe.aforesaiddecisions,at the ver}' outset, it was urg9d by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguingi;counselfor the appellants I I that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its.potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over a periodof time and;the same cannotbe limitedto thenear future alone. 7-It |was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes throughthe land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into t^vo parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,Nev/ Delhi u\./-.pp.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal .A.App. No. 3a4/20i0&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.Mpp.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters )vide starting from NH-8 from Shiy Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGPAirport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarni Houses ai'e located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samallcha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanl|ilearnedcounselfor the appellants that northern I . I part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor tlie extension of IGI Aiiport in the year 1971 and kgain in the yeai* 1980 for establisl|ingIndianOil Depotsand thereafter'inthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBhartlaaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentofDwarkaPhase-Iand I I the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBaninoliand Dhool Siras were I also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the a/w j-zzraj/mapto highlightthat the boundary oi Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguo^us. : ? I '

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally:treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of iNotificationof 16'^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three Villages in question was changed from•agricultural to residential/ commerc^ial/mdustrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewoftheNotificationof24"' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence'by Mi'.S.K.Rout,learned counselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly piscardedby the Reference Cour^ by relying upon S"ma I.^.ApD.No. 1195/2008&tonnectcd'AppealsofVillageBharthal , ' •A.App.^0. 29V2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-M.App.Mo. lll/;oiO&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I , • • . Papc9 of,29 Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,.Hyderabad& OrSy (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana A Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE ! S 41 holding that the potential of the acquired'land must be adjudged keeping in vieM' the developmentin the area over a period of time and I the same camiot be limited to a near fiiture alone and if after the i r acquisition,if the authoritiesdo not putthe land to any use, it wouldnot mean thatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharnia,^learnedcounsel for the -! I _t appellants;Upon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagsPochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedtherein varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and meiely because of die said variation,these|sale exemplars cannot be thiown 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 AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. StateofGoa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the 1^/nd which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, relian.ce placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circleKates for detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by the Government and ajsd on the basis of pre-' determmed:rates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate plotsmthe year2000-2001.Keepingin view|the location,situationand potcntialit}-ofthe acquired land, determinationof its market value is LA.App. (MO. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp.No. 7.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' A sought qn the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basisof the L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates(PDRs)as referredto above!

¶12In ithe writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds;- a)' Ignores the achiowledgement ^ Respondent about the Award No.26/2002^2005'dated \23.10.2002 being flawed in khe course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. ^(Referred to in cross-examinationb/ appellant dated

9.7.2007) '• b) poes not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyajfectekthe rates ofland in the areafor more than 15years lleforethe Notification under Section5 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. I I . I ' c) laluing the land on the ba:sis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territor}?ofDelhiis not in accordanqewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincluding'in one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble\ Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) i^oes not dealwith disparityin valueofthe SaleDeeds producedbeforethe trial Courtwfiereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recent c^se of^ Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcqumtionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrateshouldriot be disregardedin r- ^ Bharthal •; A T' ^ connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan -•A)P.No.UI,2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur on the part of the P«3ge11 of 29 case the averagesaleprice is lowkr. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai State of Goa, '2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held thqt the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging^pf different t)fpes of sales transactions should be\ considered while adjudicatingupon compensation^upona certanland. Relied upon judgment dateci 13.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market-valueofthe subject ' land while igiwringthe material ' market value of the land is much \ acre in Block A and^l3,36,000 I of the law laid down by the Hoh'ble Supreme Court ^including in Subh Ram vs. State of Hary^ana 2010(1) \ SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment : refused to return an actualfining on the issue No.l ;framed on 27.2.2007. g)\ Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide INotificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the . land use of Village Dhool Siras)^and Bharthal was ,changedand these areas ceasedtoibe agriculturaland .Icame now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. IThe masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor ;land use-change show that in\ future land can be \subjected to residential, commlercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertineni\to mention that the :appellantleadevidencein respeciofthe 74^^ amendment of the ConstitutionofIndia, w.if-1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was which indicate that the higher than 15 lacper in. Block B in violation \amended and the area where the 'deemeda municipalarea and the •was electedfrom there. No Panchayatelections were \held in the area. land is situated, was niunicipal Counsellor h) 'Refused to apply the law laid dpWn in AIR Supreme \CoiLrt 3467, RanvirSingh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia .andrefusedto considerthefact tAat the developm.entin •the area has a directeffecton tke price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjecfhnd

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also ^ A Mio f connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA A w• ^ connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010a connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur auctionedsimilarlysituatedland'as commercialbloc/cs at the rate ofabout X2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis M^hollyundeydevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe subjectlandis even lowerthan the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2 jor similarly situated land. i k) Does not take into accountthe possibility^ofchange of the use ofthe landalthoughthe landwas acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka..Phase 11. It is '•^Iterated that the land use of VUlaieDhoolSiras and Bharthalwas changed and thesesareas ceased to be agrmulturaland came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.200and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish 'the commercial ^''''Sunthala v. Tahsildar ioh l! ^ ^^^dthatthepurposefor . ic und IS acquired is a relevantfactor. While determinmg value of the propertp^ acquired the fact fatherthe landhasgotbuildingpotentialityto be used lor buildingpurposes in immediate or in nearfuture needs to he considered. \ m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands S occupied by the uildmgs are to be treatedas house-sites. The lands JartaTJ K residential hZse sitt r-consideredas house site the adjoininglands have the potentialof beingputin betteruseas housesitesin thenearfZe''

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and Uers of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual detailshave been providedv.ithaprayerthat the appeltaBof ,h" app.d be "».eda, p" wiftfc co-.ppell",""f Otherappealsin thesebunchOfappeals. ! S.,pp,"e",i"g,h.ataidargu,,™..adj.noedo" behalfof ..ppell™,,.:wasurgedb, Mr.Ana"dYadav,Advocatea.a,ft. effec,of •aapp.- - APP..0.uv2o:o. oirs fage 13 of 29 lubanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDaitatrayThirthkarj'j. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(201])DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuctionRates ctf the area are relevantto determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale uistancesreheduponby the appellantsai-e comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to 'assess the correct market value of. the acquired lands. Tlius, enhancement of compensation leflectmgijust,fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin itheseappeals.

¶15Argumgthe cross-objectionsfiledby the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot bei talcen as relevant'evidence for detenninationof "the market value unless and until the same is properly connected witlr the land-in questior^.and element of special fancy oftl^e purchaserand otherfactorsnamely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the saleinstancesreliedupon by the Respo|dentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtandwhileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ^ India, 2002 (62) DRI 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, {1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009) 15 see 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SushilKumarvs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthatshaipincrease in price in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntil reasonsfor «uch sharp Increaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller • pp. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanp.tr and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale. instance of Radha Swami Safsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. iThus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBench of this Courtin SushilKumar (supra)and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is[concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the I minimumindicativeprice of the agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1^^ April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per ' aniium, market value of the acquired lands has been en'oneously determined by the Reference Court, as ,in' Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCoUectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RefeienceCourtwhiletalcinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deservesto be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to tlie aforesaid extent,

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and.upon closepenisalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand thcdecisionscited,what emergesis thatthe true marketvalue of die comparablelaiadis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto awilling LA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageflharthal lAAop.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lAApp.No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur . ' ' Page 15 of 29. seller and the best evidence is tlie comparablesale instances. While dealing with the questionofpotentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors.y 2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords:- | I. ^

(i)• the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or village which had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousorany otherlandofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation; \

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buddings, be they residential commercial or industrial,as the casemay be; •

(ni) possibility^ofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;

(iv)^^ absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandforbuildingpurpose;-

(v) existence, of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin . the vicinity:or closeproximityoftileacquiredland;

(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) landsaroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itsef eing in demandfor buildingpurposes to specify a few. " ' 1«. The.potentialityoflandfor thepurpose'ofdevelopmentas alsofor buddingpurposesdependsupon alargenumberoffactors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to beir in mind the purposefor |A.App.No. 11.95/2008&connecledAppealsofVillageBharlhal A.mPP. Wo. ;.!)4/^oioa conncctedAppealsofVillaeeBijwasan • -App No.in/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in I ' AvinashXsM^Td).AVhilereiteratingthe relevant factors for determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands,it has been held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be a groundto discardthem especially when"exemplarsof largepiecesof land were not available.

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

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants is that where theje is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality^of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to tliem even as legards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing the I compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands I * and the acquired land. , ? •

¶20It is a well establishedpropositioniof law that the burden of provingthe true marketvalue of the acquired'land is on the State who t has acquired the agriculturalland for a p^icularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving ina4equacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can beireferredto with advantage.

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the Required land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was -iinproper. The pertinent .observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserveattention,v/hichare asunder:- i IA.App No. 2195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal > r-- lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App.No.lll/?.0i0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ! I n . ^ ' "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highestofthe exemplars,which is a^honafide transaction, will he considered. Where however there are several sales I ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken] as representing the market price. But where the values .dis'closed in respect of twp sales are markedly dijferent, 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 deteimination of fair market rate of acquired lands made b}' the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- ! I ^ I "It is well settled that genuine ^and hona 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 acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between'a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonableprudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to ) determine the market value."

¶23Principlesto detemiinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and NaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra),are as under:- | "Primarily, the increase in land pricks depends on four factors - situationof the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availability^of landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor landUn the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of^developmentin the vicinityf, increase in prices would \be slow, steady and gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. lA.A|jp.No. ]195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageDharthai ' lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' ' lA./^op.No. lJi/2010&connsctedAppealsof VillagePochanpu' Page 18 of 2a On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a \much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched\even30% to 50% or moreper year, during the nineties. On the other exti^eme, in remote rural areas where there, was no chance of any developmentand 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 Iin market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only aroundhalfof it, that is about5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the ^general trend in the nineties, to he adoptedin the absenceof 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 increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe marketvalue by providingappropriate-escalationover the provedmarketvalue ofnearbylandsi in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelandsin the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by\onlyafewyears, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond that it. may be unsafe, even ifit relates to a neighbouring land Wlmt may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is onlya feM> years, may become unsafe and, unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market-value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or LA.App.rfo. 3J95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal (A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years,'the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drasticchange apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurtsinprices affectingthe verystandard ofincrease."

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Haiyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(ESIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods.What was saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC I I (Supra) is'as under:- "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or fands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situation-shouldbe avoided anda uniformrateofcompensationshoiildbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthesamenotification." I ,

¶25Undisputedly,in these appeals sale'exemplarsin and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitai7sale'exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,FiadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price whichvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper aci'e." •

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-^1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)which are basicallybetween:one set ofco-ownersand RadhaSwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmepuring18 Bighasand^e Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe con-ectmarketvalueof the landmthe villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhich is required to be answ|ered. Evidently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds ^.App.No 119V2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan 'A.App.No. 111,1010&connectcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur (Iix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its-pricevaries from ?52 lacs ^ to f62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby,itlie entire land of the sale exemplars—Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was dependentupon?thenatureand situationof I , 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,thesesale exeraplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to! Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these.,agriculturalland has not been got ;examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid,sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh price for diese lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swaini Satsang. Beas v/ho had purchasedmore than"33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvideSale Deed executedon 25"' March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. Ap^. No. 266/2008titledas Jm Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 23.^2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhileholdingthatthe same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlandsJ

¶27In the instantmatters, thoughthe land use ofthe acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has comein evidence that die acquiredlandswere beingused for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition:Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No pmdent person having;knowledgeof prevailing |.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal A M°' ®connectKdAppealsofVillageBijwasan ^A.App.NO. 1U/.010&connectedAppeal,ofVillageP^pur 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 I t considered opinion of this Court the sale lexemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been, rightly discarded by the ReferenceCourt. ^ :

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11) rehed 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)vendorhad soldnot onlythe I'andbutthe structurethereon including;tube well, boring,fitting, fixture, I it had fetched such a high price. In view cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question. , ;

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly I situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to wlietl:ieradoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DetemiinedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to detenninethe true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixationofmarketvalue of acquiredlands I highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreponedas P. RamReddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However; in eitherofthe said cases whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvaluecftheiacquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedby saleofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tMe neighborhood IA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ane, by-lane, etc., therefore, thereof, this sale exemplar 31, ofwhetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood,it becomes Inevitablefor the Court tofind out-whatwill be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by anyoftheparties,withj-kferenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsp0on the dateofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) oftheAct Further,where no evikenceofpricefetched by the sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to t^tc^vuru uuie oj publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act. accordingto the actualuse to which it wasputandincreaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made ayaUable in that regard V. small percentage increaseto be.givenshall not exceed1/5th ofthe market value of the landfound out accordingto its actual user SlVir.P. ^7 i r . . ' . since resort to the method ofgiving such buildingpotentialityarises only mere is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the, neighborhoodof he acquiredland indicatingthat ther^e was no immediate •» the In view ofthe difficultiesin adoption Df.rateofland chargedby the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same,and transferringperpetualleaseholdrights, the Xp^x Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining fee market value of the ad,ommg undevelopedfreehold lands. Followingithe dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench ofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra) has excluded ihe DDA rates qua the velopedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessingthe inarketvalueof NO.11V2010&cannmed/AppealsOfVillagePochanpur the relevant date of increased valuefor ^ when there is no the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedtheDDA ratesfor allotmentof developedland or I the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates foi' alternateallotmentsfor fixing the I marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is iwhetherprogressiveincrease I method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the I land in questionwhiletalcinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland.othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I/ It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, I y; learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10%;perannum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for |the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarlca^-Phase-I and the instant • I I,' Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPliase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the LandAcquisitionCollectoris morethanthe aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. i • . "

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemetliod in assessmentof the marlcet value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unrehablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsand therefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value1by providing appropriate LA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal V LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBtjwasan I.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' 3^^ escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandof thepreviousyears. )

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the ; respondent/cross-objector had urged that fthe Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, jA^fhich is unwaiTanted as a coordinatebench of this Court in Sushil\Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After haying pemsed the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I fmd that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over md above the market valub determinedby the ReferenceCourthas 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 matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whetlier adoption of Government's minimumprice oftlie agriculturalland in Delhi,by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determining,the market value of the acquired land and as to whethertire escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixation,of.^the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f l"'April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deservesto be further increasedor not. ; 1 '•

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum.rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by the learned counsel for;appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^'' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban.It is trufethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthatby itselfis notsufficientto IA ^ connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AA ^ connectedAppealsofVillageBtjwasan i^.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' ' presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose/

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4[)f the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year-1994, then appellantscouldhave laidtheirhands on opivsale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto areligious-institutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without.leading any evidence to establishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur^and the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land 'with the sale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot;be treated to be sufficient \ ground to grant higher compensationwlrile rkying upon the aforesaid sale nistances.Therefore, in view of the afore-refeiTeddictum of the Apex Court mHaryana State Industrial'DevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the liglit of the minimum'price fixed by the Governmentfor the agricuhuralland in Delhi, which -generally factors in the rise i-of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that tliere is agap between what UA M°" Jo f ^ connecledAppealsofVillageBharthal LA A T' ^ AppealsofVillageBijwasar, LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur would be expectedto be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminiraumagriculturalpricehas been held I' I to be reasonable basis for assessingthelmarlcetvalue of the acquired landsmJaiSingh(Supra)as well as mSushilKumar(Supra)andI find no reasonto talce adifferentviewthan the oije whichhad been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra). i

¶38Ihis Court is ofthe consideredview that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal;and Village Bijwasan has lightly relied upon the Governinent'sminimum price for agricultural lands mDelhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matteroHillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situation ofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe,aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railwayline passingthrough Village Bharthal and tliere being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and therJ b^ing Farm Houses in the vicmityof the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In'theconsideredopinion!ofthis Court, on accountof aforesaid;locationaladvantages,the acquiredIknds in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseoverand abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed 6y the Reference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentialityin^'the acquiredlands is the lAApp.Mo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVtllageBharthal -App. No.111/2010&connectcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur I settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Naiisherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words;- I "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildings in the immediateor nearfuture) such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquired land had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value talcinginto accountthe increaseinprice attributable to such buildingpotentiality. "

¶39Consideringtlie fact that it would ble very difficultto provide a definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan nevei be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensationjit is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e, appellants,of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relyingjupon the decisionin Siishil Kumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10%;increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Aocordmgly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto VillageBharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof lA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal" A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l^-App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ! V-the-appellants of 'Village Pochanpur are also allowed to tlie extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these diree villagesmquestionis determined@i^l6,50,000/-per^Jii^:®for the Catcgoi-y 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per bi^ha for the Category 'B' lands in question. i I

¶41On the aforesaid enliancement in' the compensation awarded, statutoiybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelayin filingthe appeal, foi whichperiodofdelayno intereston the erihancedcompensationshall be paid.Theseappellantswouldbe entitled;to proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby'eitherside with the Registrar General ofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordihglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb (S'UML GAUR) JUDGE LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur f '' r '9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW I + LA.APP. 1195/2008 ! RANBIRSHARMA i . Appellant Through. Mr.B.S.Maan,Mi'.Amitj^aan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaaii,Mr.Rls;Verma,MrJitin Tewathia,Advocates I "• Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. INdx.Rohtas,Advocate.| [ Mr.RaghuvinderGodana;Advocate Mr.N.S.NegiandA/Jr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar,|Advocatefor • Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.SiK.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UMONOFWIA&Am. ^; nrough. Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.JllohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran Advocatesfor LACAJQI •, ^•AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Skhi,Ms. AmitaSingh ^-BanlceyBihariShm-ma,Mr.KunalShaimaand Mr.SomerK.Setla,Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR ^ "/ order •

12.01.2012 £^M,AbbUVo^2/2012 rFor This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof6^''Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellants;have acceptedthe notice U.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 iy< , if ofthe appHcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas aheadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. I I The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6^^ January, 2012 is that in' paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate'ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should' be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned I counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowed;and it is orderedthatthe referenceto,'perbigha'in paragraph no. 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. i ' In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb XSUNILGAUR) JUDGE LA.App.No.1195/2008

% + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 209/2010 AZAD SINGH & ORS Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR