Dharamvir Singh & Anr v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06,2012 pkb -(SmiL GAUR) JUDGE Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. % _5 m TOE HIGH COURT OF DELHI A1^ TJEW DELHI Reserved on: November 18. 20 J1 Pronounced Qu:_./cimqrv 0^ 20j2_ (GRJD-A) LA.APP.l ].95/20()8(VILLAGE-BHA.RTHAL) RANBIR SHARAIA, ' Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA'erma, Mr.Jithi Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms,Anita Toraar, Advocates, Mr.Rohias, Advocare. Mr.Raghnvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.lM.S,Negi aud JV!i,H.S.Rautela. Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout aud Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam y\nsari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.]:)eepakKhosla, Mr.Sainit Khosla and Mr.rJhan.aiijay r>4chlawat,Advocates Mr.H.lS.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandcep Thakh^jr.Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocaie. Mr.N.S.Negj and MT.i'I.S.Ra.ulela,(.AdvocatesInr respondeni in app<;als filed by IJOl.) versus UNION OV INDIA & ANR. spondcms ' ThrouyJi; Mr.SanjayPoddav,.SeniorAd\'ocatcwith Mr.Sanjav Pathal<, M,r.lVloh,itrac..'.'adha\'and Ms.Navlin owain.' Ms-.K.Kaumudi Kiran. Advocates for I..Aa:/UC)I Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Becnashaw Soni. Mr.Mukcsh Kumar, Mr S.K.Sethi, Mi-.Pawan Mathur, MnKunal ShanrjH, Advoca.te.fc)- [)DA !..A..AFP.4i2,'200S& CM.No,40'->6/2U0S (Cross-Objections).f..'\.APP.452/2008; LA.A.PP.o88/.:^(K}8 0 (x^ross-(}bjeciions); i.A.APP.697/2008^& CM.No.433/200''(Cross-objcctioi-is);i:.A.APF.70i/2008& Ci\i.No.510/2009 (Cross-Ofcjection.;;;.: \.AP}'.768.''200R; !..\.y\pr'.77()./2008;, h;(i. 1 & coi-'iicctedAppp.nlstirvilhifii;Dh:irl.li;.il i No. /'J1/y010S, r.onnuniedAppc;.jl.sol \/ill3(?(![5iiw;i'..iiii IA.App. l.ll /vn.lO& connra'-.idAppealsofViilaf.c;I'-ocnanpur Pago I oi LA,APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2()09 (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.77(5/2008; . LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP,798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,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 (Cross-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.AP]'.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 &• CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); l.A.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 ' (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572,/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008 (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008 l..A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& ClViNo.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1049/2008 8c CM.No.420;2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008 LA.APP.l051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.l052/2008 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.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.-623/2009(Cross-Objections);

1..A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/200r< & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cros.s-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 •(Cross-Objections);'LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.i094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA:APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No:3839/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l109/2008; LA.APP.l110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);, [.A.APP.1111/2008; LA.APP.l112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA .APP.1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.APP.l 1)6/2008; LA.APP.l 12.1/2008; r.A.APP.i"l26/2008;LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009"(Cross-Objeciions); LA.APP.l 130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Obiections), LA.APP.1133/2008;LA.APP".1135/2008'& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP.l 156/2008; LA.APP. 1157./2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No:7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008 -LA.APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/20Q9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008 LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l]71/2008;LA.APP.ll"72/2008;LA.APP.l173/2008 LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/20D8; LA.APP. 1179/2008; L A.APP. 1181/2008 LA.APP.l 182/2008; LA.APP.l 183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections) ],A.APP.l184/2008; LA.APP.l185/2008; I.,A.APP.l186/2008& CM.No.7bl3/2009 I.A.App. No. .USS/J.OOSKi connRCted AppGalsof Village! Bhyrlhal LA ApD. No.','.yi/20.10 & connficlftd Appeal.?of VillaguBijwassn 17\.App.Nt). & conncctecl Appeals of ViliagoPochaiiDui' • Page2or29 T % (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP.1.191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008; LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.N6.6935/2009(Cross-Objectioiis); LA.APP.1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008; LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Obiections): LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008; LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/20a8; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008; LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008; LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; ' LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 , (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.7103/2009, (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 13.5/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009

1.A. APP. 140/2009 LA.APP. 162/2009 LA.APP; 197/2009 LA.APP.202/2009 (Cross-Objcctions) LA.APP.211/2009 LA.APP.224/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.249/2009 LA.APP.3 67/2009 LA.APP.459/2009 l.A.APP.489/2009 LA.APP.494/2009 LA.APP..507/2009 LA.APP.511/2009 LA.APP.572/2009 LA.APP.404/2010 LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; i:.A.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.yVPP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245./2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13,/20]1; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.AP?.447.'2009; l.A.APP.480/2009; LA. APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008; 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.7206/200'9 LA.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.3 05/2009; 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; LA.APP.1177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; L,A,APP.231/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96,'L& B/LA/13417 dated I3.L2,2000 issued under Section 4 of the I.,and-.Acquisition Act, 1894 & /Vward No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRJD-B) Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE,- BLTWASAN). D]:iVENDER KUMAR •Throush: Appellant Mr.R.S.'ronia.r, Mr.Virendra Singh 1A,App. i\]o ;i.a95/,'.00S& coiineclcd Appeals of VillageBharllial 1A,App, No. 294/2010& connoctedAppRal.sofVillageBijwasaii l.A.App No, ].L,1/Z010&connected Appeal.sof Village Pochanpur Ads'ocates 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 • LA.APP. LA.APP. L.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. T.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Ihrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhax",and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and I. Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, '71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOl Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharraa, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates . for DDA. 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. J.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.

1.1/2010 53/2010 57/2010. 22L/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288,/2010 296/2010 347/2010 3 51,'2010 356/2010 742/2010. 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 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. L.A.APP. LA.APP, l.A.APP, LA.APP. 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 (Cross-objections) 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.

1..A.APP. f^A.APP, .LA.APP. & 51/2010

55.'2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010

732./2010 828/2010 aielating to. NotificationNo. F. 10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12,2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AxquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,Village Bijwasan,Delhi) AND l.A.App,.Mo .H'jrj/-2008& connectnclAppealsofVillageBharUial LA.App, No. iq-l/'/Olt)& connectedAppealsofVillageQijwasan !.A,App,iMo. vn/:ma & connecU-dAppealsofVillage Pochanpur . l-'af;et of Z9 '% (GRir:)-c) . Reserved on: December 18. 20.11 Pronounced on.: Janudrv 06. 2012 l.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHA:J^PUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61,64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant ijT R-22) versus WflON OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents IVtr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for'UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA: LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.' LA.Al'P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 1^^0/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 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. LA.APP,

1..A.APP. I-A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. • LA.APP. LA.APP. L/V.APP. LA..APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA..4PP. LA.APP. . 155/2010 . 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 57':'/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011

5.26/2011-591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. i.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 156/2010 , 215/2010 , 250/2010 270/2010 '306/2010 393/2010

41.2/2010 434,/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429,/20H 522,'20II 535/2011 •i.A,App. No. J.19V?.008&conneclodAppeaLsofVillageBharthal LA-App. No, 294/2010&conncctodAppealsof VillageBijwasan i-A.App No 111/2010&conncclorjAppealsof VillagePochanpur. Pap,e 5 of 29 (Relating to Notification No. F;.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 ^dafed

13.12.2000issued under Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct,,1894 &' AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR" JUSTICE SUNIL 'GAVJl , O R D E R ^ •

06.01JlOli

¶1Since the groundson which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing ot these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/15417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedoi by this commonorder. Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of if' December, 2000 under Section 4 oi the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, peitaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block compiising of thirteenRevenue Kstates Inciudingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellaj'itsherein in the aforesaid thi'ee villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting compensation ^13.82 lacs per acre for l^lock 'A' (level field -- with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue ofthcii-acquirixi ./ V iy\.VApp. Mo. i:<);i/2D08&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal. lAApp. No. ?.9'V?.010&conn(!cledAppealsofVillagn Bijwasan '

1.A^App. No. 11,1/?.0.10& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur . , Page? 6 of, 29 fT> agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt 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 their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karmitaka Housing Board ra. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag ami Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Ann,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs.. State ofHaryam and Am\,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors,, (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AJ.R'2005Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special-Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, ' 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs^ Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRI 227; • Rama ISand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India & 2002 .(65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State 'of-Raryana & 2010(9) SeAlJi 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab '•& Ors., 201'! (9) SCAl J'-i 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors State, of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 See 568; W.P.(e) No, 4143/2003 tilled as Sml Indii Khorana vs. Gram Sahhd & Ors, decided on 26.03,2010; Special I.and Acquisition Officer Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibkai and ors ra. Executive Engineer, LA.App. No. fi connected Appeals of Village Sliartha-' ;.A.App. No. 7.94/2010 & connecled Appeal.'; of VillaBR Cijwa.snn •A.App. No in/2010 S connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ' • • Paj;G7of29 // Gujarat and Anr,, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175; RisalSingh & Ors, Vs. UnionofIndia& Aim, 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union ofIndia and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and •Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. Rameshhhai Jivanbhai Paid and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaiand Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray.Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General) Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Ann, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs and Ors vs. UnidnofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Sdtpa! ife Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kmnar 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 BhideRam vs. UnionofIndia, 2010 •(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan.learned'arguingcounsel for the.appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be fust undeistood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near iiiturealone.

¶7it was pointed out by Mr.R.S/Iomar, counsel ibr appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage raflway line of Village BiijAvasan passes through the land of VilJage Bharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. No. i:i)P/2008& cannRCtGclAppealsofVillageQharihal IA.App. No, 29/1/2010&connectedAppualsof VlllagG Bijwasan - ' .A.App. No. 'l.l.:l/2010&c0nnc!ctc!dAppealsofVillaRC Pochancur • Page 8 .Lif 29 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI 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.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first'acquiredfor the extension oi IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and ,the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il" Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks .y/z/m/niapto highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounsel 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 Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the tlirec villages in question was changed fxom agricultura!' to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land of VillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notificationof24^'' October,1994. 9, It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aibresaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. lA.App. No. Ijys/.v.oos& connectedAppealsof'VillajjeBharthal lAApp..|\lo.294/?.0;i0a conneclodAppealsofVlllaBe Bijwasan lAApp. tvlo. lll/MlO&connecleclAppealsof VillagePochanpur • • Papc9of23 /J Reddi&Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad.& Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex eourt in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingmview the developmentin the area over aperiodof 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 meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality. J0. Reliancewas placed by Mr.IB.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the , appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?=52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot he thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantages'and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Anjam Moiu Dessaivs. StateofGou , mdAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe market price 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, reliancc placed by the • Courtuponthe minimumralcs/circIerates for determiningthe maiketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquired land was sought by Mi.R.Godara,learnedcounsel for the appellantson the basis of the I.& DO rates fixed by the Government and' also on the basis of pre-detenninedrates fixed by the Governmentfor'allotmentof alternate plots in d.e year 2000-2001.Keepmg in view Lhe location,situationand poicntiahtyof the acquired land, dctenninationof its market value is IAApp.No.U9V2008acoMno«^^^ . .LA.App,No. ..J4/?.01.0&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App No, llj/ioioa connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur r sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis .of the L«& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) ''Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.J0.2002 being flawed in 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 faci that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates of land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid, down by variousdecisionsincludingin one of the m.ore recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tghsildar. 2010(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidmce and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the value ofthe land under.acqiiisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds produced,before the trial Courtwhereasas per the law established by the Hon'ble Suprem.eCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakird Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The • Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigher rate shouldnot be disregardedin IA,A()p. INO, J19'i/200!!& corineclcdAppealsofVillage liharthal l./i.App.No. ,794/2010& connGciedAppealsofVillage liijvvasan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ff case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vi". State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should • be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a. certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the mxirket value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the m.arket 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 Suprem.e Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haiyana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the. impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual jinding on the issue No.1 fram.ed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Mumcipal Corporation of Delhi, the land, use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was • • changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for land use change show that in future land, can be subjected to residentiai commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"^ amendment' of the Constitution of India. w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was a.m.end.ed and the area Vv'here the land is situated, M>a.s ' • deemed a municipal area G.ncl. the miinicipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down hi AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh arid Anr vj'. Union of India and refused to consider thefact thai the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wotild.pay for the subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent. 'No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & conneclpd Appeal.s of Villa(5G Bharthal I.A.App. No.23'1/?.010& connected Appeals of VillageBijvva.san LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir Page 17. of29 auctioned similarly situated land, as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdeveloped,land. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land M>as acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and. these areas ceased, to be agricultural and cam.e now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityof the said land. In Sa.nguntha.lav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held that the purposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the "property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used, for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m.) Ihe presence of a number of buildings on the lands accfuired and the said land, being occupied bv the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of^putting up residential quarters.As a portion,oj the land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture. "

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

¶14SuppJeraentingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfof the appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof LA.App. Mo. ,1195/2008& connectGdAppealsofVillageBharthal l.f.App.No. 294/2010&conncclndAppealsof Village BIjwasan lV\.App. No. ]11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagepochanpur Papp 13 f29 urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar ra. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and thai Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesrelied uponby the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference-.Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondent's,Mr. Sarijay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-/\ of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence lor determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely, nature, situationof the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin M vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DPvJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Cham! I's, Union of Indiii and (/.009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.201,!,,it wq.s urged that sharp inc,rcase in price in a short period cannot be taken lo be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 119.'5/Z008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No, 7..94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App, No, ,r!,:l,/?,010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' Cage 14 of 29 and the puixhaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendmthe marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the . appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf ol the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO ratcs/Pre-DetermmedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court mLai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidmateBenchofthis Courtin SmMlKumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra). K. !6. So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmemas on 1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in SmsMI 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 AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting; the enhancement b>' the RcierenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in hne while granting- - appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. '

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the , sides and upon doseperusalofthe impugnedjudgnienl,the evidenceon iccordand the decisionscited,what emergesis that the true marketvalue ofthe compai-ableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling l.A,App. No. llPS/2008&connncteclAppealsofVillageBharthol iAApp. NO..294/V010&connectndAppealsof VillageBijwa.san IA.App. rJo. ,.1.1/2010&connecUidAppealsof VillagePocfianpur Page 15 cl Zf) /I seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haiyana & Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words "(ij the situation of the acquired land vis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because ofits explosivepopulation:

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

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

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquired,landfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of higlmays, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinityor closeproximity ofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which m.ay becom.e available to the occupiers of buildings,if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶18ihe potentialityofland for the purposeof developmentas also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose lor 1A.App. No. 1195/7.008& conncclnd Appealsof Village Bharthal LA.App. No ?.')4/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwar.an U^.App. No. l.ia/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Papc ig(,f29 which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determinEition of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the aj^pellantscould 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 Land AcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behall of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialilv of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no Justification for reducing the compensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be 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 Court in AnjaniMoiu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App. Mo. J155/2008& coririocledAppealsofVillageBharthil lA.App, No. ?.94/:?010a tionnccledAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l-A.App.No. l'U/7010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur papc 17 f29 •/ "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to .similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, M'iU he considered.. Where, however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of tM'o sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-va.lua.tion or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to,. " ,

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of tho clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chiiulha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as . follows:- "//• is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands, situated in the neighborhood of the acquired, lands possessing sim.i.lar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee a.nd. the Mnlling vendor which could, be expected, to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(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, availability of land for developm.entin the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices' would be slow, steady and grad.ua.l,withoutany sudden spurts or jumps. 1A.App. No, j ]95/2008 & conncclGdAppealsof Village fBharilial i.A.App No.291/2.010& conn.GctedAppeals of VlllaRC I3ijwa.sari LA.App, No, lJl/20iaSi connectedAppealsof VillagePochar,pur 1> f 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 even 30% to 50% or • . more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of .any development, and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1%) or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in . urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. • This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are sp.ecial reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices,' then the increase to be applied would,depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value byproviding appropriate escalation over the proved, market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the .subject acquisition by only afew yedr.s, that is upto four -tofiv.e years. Beyond. that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a. neighbouring land. What may be a reliablesiaindardif the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For:example,for determiningthe -m.a.rket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adoptii^.g the annual increase method' with reference to a sale or I.A.App. M(i. I195/200SSi connncled/VppoalsofVillageBh'artha! . ' . ' i.A.Apo, No. :'.9'1/2010& connnctedAppealsofVillage Eiiwasan LA.ApD No. 11.1/2010&conneaedAppeal;of VillagePochanpMr ' PaRe .19 u( 29 r acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apart from-the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurtsinprices'affectingthe verystandard ofincrease." ' . '

¶24This Courtis mind&lofthe dictum ofthe Apex Courtin ImhistnalDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the. acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesoflands (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 situationshouldbe avoided and.a uniform,rate of compensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification."

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

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW^-1/4to Hx.PW-l/lO)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectof the.compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 BiswassituatedmVillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the-mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp. No. 29'1/20.10&connected"Appealsof VillageBijwasan bVApp. No. ni/20]0& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 1"^ (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was 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 agricultural lands 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 examined by the appellants.Mad the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Sw^ami 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 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe ti-eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. ^7. In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuch priorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition. Ihus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent pej-son having knowledge of prevailing l-A.App. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharlhal ' 1-A.App.No. 294/2010&conncctedAppealsof Village Bljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pi =fzq 7^ 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 (lix.PW-1/4 to Itx.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (l^x.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fctchcd such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in queslion.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and •Prc-DcterminedRates for the alternate plots 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 l\ Ram Reddyand Ors. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-

¶12tjowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acqtiiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto tiae pricefetched by sale ofplots in a M>ell developedlayoutin the neighborhood IA..App. No. :i 13:i/2008& i;c)nnent(;dAppealsof VillageBhartlial I.A.App. No. 294/;!01.0& conrioctedAppnalsofVillaefiliijwasan lA.App.No. I.n/;.OIOa connectndAppealsof VillagePochanpiir • Pape22of?.y r orwhetheritbe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynoti.ficationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by tl%e sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhood,of the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe 'done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 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 according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when, there is no evidenceofsales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " • 111 view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land ciiarged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agricuJtura]lands,developingthe same^ and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of lA.App. No,,ll,%/7,008&connoctndAppealsof VillageBharlliol tA.App, NO. ?'.W?aiO&connaclndAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. .1U/3010& connectedAppealsof VillagePnchanpur Pane 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 acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seniorcounselfor the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the 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 Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice aiid therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. j3. Aloresaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt piogicssivcincrease method in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland'onlywhen the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that i( may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ot only ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phaso-I and Dwarka Phase-Ilis oi sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate l.A.App.No. n9b/2008&conniictndAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010&conncctndAppealsofVillageBljwasan l-A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 2'1 of 29 7^ cscaJationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previousyears.

¶34Mi.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebench of this Court m.SmhilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. ARcr having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I fmd that 10% increaseon account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determn^edby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon SiiskilKumar (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 whether adoption of Government's mmmuimprice ofthe agriculturalland in J^elhi, by the ReferenceCouil , IS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalatiorjof 12% per annum granted by the RefeienceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by tlie learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquired land had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be uiban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNdificationofthe year 1994 die land use ol-the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App. Wo. ].]9V2dc;5& connected/\ppe;ilsof VillageIJIiarthni l^.App. No. milQlQ&connocledAppealsol VillageBiiwa,san LA.App. No. &connectedAppealso( VillagePochanpur l-'aBe25of29 y presume thai the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands , m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculluralpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the is.suanceofNotificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, ,894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been ihcreasein price due to higlierdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellant..;couldhave laid theirhandson othersale instancesin the area Ml question.But, indeedappellmilscannotrely upon the sale of Uie land mVillage Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village SamallAa (Ex.PW-l/li)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityoftile sale exemplarsaiRadha Swami Salsang. Bea, in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSanialkha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-I/II) cannot^be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale m.stances. fherefore, in view of tlie afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Baryana State JndmtHaJ Devdopmcm Corporation amDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded lor the lands acquired under the .same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agrieuhuralland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher . potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what IA.APP. No. lir,5/2008&connoclodAppeal.^ofVillageBharthal ' LA.App. Mo. 294/20.1.0&connoctotiAppeal?of VillageBijwa.an lA.App. No. lj.1/20.10&connHctedAppt^aisof VillagePochanpui Page 26 of 2.9 3^ / would be expectedto be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushilKumar(Supra)and I find no reason to take a differentview than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

38.- This 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, h'indingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of tlic acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButI find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and ofRailway line passing through Village f3harthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and PartII, dividingthe •acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityot the acquiredlands has somehow missed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion ofthis Court, on accountof aioresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume higherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhasc-I. What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market value oi the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account ofthe higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the 1/.App. Nci. U9V2008& connectfidAppealsofVillagei3h^rlhal iy\.App.No. 294/2010&cormocledAppnalsofVillageBijv>/asan IA.App. No.-1.1.i/7.o:o&connectedAppeslsof VlllagG Poclianpur " ! cifjO t./ oi 29 / 3^ settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion ' ' wouM be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedlo determine its market va.uetakinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable tosuch buildingpotentiality."

¶59Considenngthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of Ehe fact that exactnesscan never be achievedin the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesmo to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe feir market value of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bhmthal and Village Bijwasan.Mowever, while relying upon the decision in SmhU Kumm-(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby theReferenceCoun in Ihese matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awardmg10% increaseoverand above Che maitetvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bhatthal and Village Buwasan.WhiletreatingtlieappellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with' , .he appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBtjwasan,the appealsof •^•App.No.l.U/;.01C& connmcdAppcr,l,sof VilliigoPochanpur 23 of 29 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also' allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue'ofthe acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@^16,50,000/-per>^^for the Category A'- land and @ 4,69,600/-per bigha for the Cate^ry'B' lands in question.• Vx-.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement•in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs\ UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,excepttor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi \N^hich periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto 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 of this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. nary 06, 2012 pkb l-A.App.No. 1195/2008&connoclcdAppealsofVillagGBharthal .^..App.No. 2<M/2010&connecledAppealsof VlllagoBIjwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connoctcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur r JUDGE O-'- / {Yf f •" Pago 29 of 29 :33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SI-IARMA ' Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mi"JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.,Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mi-.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mi'.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.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: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kirtui, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, • Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shanna and Mi'.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON' BLE MR. J USTICE SUNIL GAUR • ORDER %

12.0L2012 C.M. AippL No» 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice s!!r'."T-;arEE3 LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 y y oftlieappjication.Advancecopyoftliis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointedout by Uie respondentin the decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aloresaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'perbigha'. whereas it shoidd be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants:Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph ao: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessarj-correctionsbe'caitiedoutfortliwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,thisapplicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb JUDG.E Page 2

% + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 160/2010 DHARAMVIR SINGH & ANR 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.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR