Kanwar Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Anrq

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 (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE •J I llN HIE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Al' NEW DELHI % Fronoiinced on: Jcinuaiy_06, 20J_2. (GRJD-A) I . LA.APP.] 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARAIA Appellant Tbrough:. Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AniitMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smila Maan, Mr.ll.SA'erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Toraar, Advocates: . Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghiiyinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Megi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roui and i\4r.B.K,Routray,Mr.M.Azam Ansari. Advocates, Mr.PankaJ Vivek, Advocate Mr.RaJeshYada\..Mr.l^eepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKho.sIa and Mr.]~Jhan.anjayMchlawal, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rauiela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Ad\ocal.ft Mr.Sandeep Thakiiur. Advocate Mr.AtuI Tripathi, .Advocaie. Mr.N.S.Negiand MrJ'I.S.RmUela,'(Advocatesfur respondent in appeals filed by UOl) versus UNION ()]• INDIA&ANR. ^ Respondcnrs Ihruugh; Mr.Sanjay'Poddciv,Si.^niorAd\'ocat;cwit;-) Mf.Sanjav Pathak, MT.Mo,i).itrao.yadhtr,-and SwairL Ms-.K.Kauniiidi-Kiraa.-Advocatesfo.rl.AC/UOI Mr.Ajay Venr.a, Ms.Set^nashawSoni. Mr.Mukcsh Kumar,Mr S.K.Sethi,Mr.Pawan Mathui', Mr.Kunal •• " Shanna. AdvoCiiifc-fbr [)[)A , tA PP.412/2008 & CM.No,4096/2008 (Cro.ss-Objecliops) 1"APP-hOO-'' . i-A.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/20G8& C;\lNo.5990/20]0 (Cross-Objecliinj^ 'CM.No.43.3/2009 (Cross-Objectionsj:l.A.Ar'P.70!/20s;8& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Omection;;): !.A-APPJ68/200S; !.A.APP.77(}/2un8^ I-••-Al.-'p. !iy;3/.-:00-;i&cojincttcdAppr;iIscifVilliiRi;Bh;irLli:.il ' •^.Ar.o.Mo./WAUQS ccriiioiM.cdAppc.-.jl.soi' Villat^c- ' I'VAnp.i\',....l.i.T/?0.10&cor,nc-ac.dApp-:a!iofVilla(>(.-l-ochanpnr ' , ' oi 79 . LA,APP.771/2008 & CM.No:425/2()09. (Cioss-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; • LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); LA.APP.774/2008 & •CM.No;611/2009 (Cross-ObjeGtions); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; •LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 &. ' CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objeetions); LA.AFP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 •.(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.l795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/200-8; I'A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; L.A.APP.844/200^; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 &' CM.No.779/20l1 (Cross-Oibjections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); • LA.APP.89972008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM'.No.'519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA. APP.993/2008;LA .AFP. 1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APF.103:i/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.lO32/2O08& CM.No.599/20d9(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l046/2008; !..A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.] 04:8/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l050/2008; LA.APP.l051/2008 & CM.No. 1,7262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; .LA.AFP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.AFP. 1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM..No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l059/2008 & CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Obiections); l,A.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008& CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l073/2008; LA.APP.l074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections);

1...A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.l081/2008 & •CM,No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008(Cros.s-Objections);LA.APP.r086.'2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l087/2008& CM.No.6i9/2009 . ..(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l093/2008;' A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.l095/2008; "LA.APP.l103/2008 & CM.No.44i/2009•(Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.l108/2008 & CM.No:3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA:APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & • CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objectiovis);. LA.APP. 1111/2008; LA.APP. 1112/2008 & C\4.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA .APP.1113/2008 & CM'.No.3826/2009 .(Ci-pss-Objectionsj;LA.APP.11 i;5/2008; L.A.APP.1116/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008; l.A.APP.l 126/2008; LA.AFP.-l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeclions!;

1.A.APP,1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Obiections); LA.APP:1133/2008;LA.APP.li35./2008& CFvI.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objeciions); lA.APP. 1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA,A,PP.l140/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.l 1^7/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.]]71/2008; LA.APP.11"72/2008; LA.APP.1173/2008;

1..A.APP.LI75/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA..APP.1179/2008; LA.APP 1181/2008-LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l1B3/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APF.1184/2008;LA.APP.l185/2008; LA.APP.1186/2008&CM.No.7013./2009 I/VApp..No. n95/?.t)08& fignnoctedAppeaLsofVilliiBCBharthal l.A App. No. & connectedAppealsofViilagoBijv/assn I.A.App.r'io. :i.1:l./;'.r)iOa connocUiSAppeal.';ofVillage;PochaiiDur'' ' ' PagpZol'29 (Cross-Objcctipns); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA-APP. I 191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP.] 193/2008; LA.APP.ll'94/2008; LA.APP,1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2O08& CM.No.6935/2009CCross-Objections); 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. 1225/20Q8& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections);., 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. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 I.A.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.128I/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.Noi746/2011 (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. 135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Obj actions); LA.APP.2! 1/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.249/2009;. i-A.APP.367/20d9; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; I.A.APP.507/2009; LA.y\PP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 19,8/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA. APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.25;7/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.46'6/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.5m/2009; LA.APP.l'5/2010; LA.APP. 13,/20]1: I.,A.APP.295/2009; . I.A.APP.447./2009; LA.APP.4S0/2009; LA. APP.491/2009; LA'.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP,45/2010; i.A.APP. 1138/2008. i./\APP,l 177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 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.4 58/2009 L A, 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 (Relating to Notification No. PM0(30)/96/L& B/LA/LM17 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the ]..and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. '26/2002-2003dated23.10.200?,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December OS. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). / ]3j;;VENDER KUMAR Appellant Through; | .Mr.R.S.Tomrsr,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. i\|o ;l.a9:5A!OC8& connectcdAppealsofvillageBharlhal i-A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasiin lA.App No. l.l.l/;.010& connectedAppeal.^ofVillage Pochanpur Advocates ' • . Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and : Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Advocates for appellant (inR-2-14,38,41-46,49, 50-69, 73, 75,,76) versus UOl & ANR ivA.APP LA.APP l-.A.APP, I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L.A.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 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & .1 Respondents Through: ' Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with i Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao' ' Jadha^', and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forLlOI/LAC. : Mr.S.K.Solanki 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,BankeyBihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal ; Sha)-m,aand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 •LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288,/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 35'L'2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP: 361/2010. LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 43:8/2010 LA.APP.72^/2010 LA.APP.72,9/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 . LA.APP.28^1/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 •LA.APP. 59/2010 •'LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.A.PP.. 289/2010 LA.APF:'.313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA..APP. 362/2010 , L.A.APP. 407./2010 LA.,APP. 588/2010 l.A.APP.

725./2010 LA.A.PP. 731./2010 T.A.APP. 764/2010 •LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP, 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. LA.APP. LA.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 (Relatingto NotificationNo. Fi10(30)96-L&-B/LA/134L7dated \3.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijAvasanyDelhi) ' ' • ^ iANlD • l-A.App. No .liyr>/-2008&conncctRclAppealsof Village Bharlh.nl l-A.App. No;. ?MpaiO&conncictGriAppnalsof VillageBijwasan! .>\.App.No. •i.U/;).O.lo& conriGcU'dAppealsofVillagePochanpur . 4 of 29' • r •% • ). (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 ].A.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.p.Sharma,Mr.SJC.Solankiand Mr.S.k.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.6], 64, 65/2011) Mr.RaJeshYadav,.Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through; Respondents IVIr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr .SarijayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao ' •Jadhav,and Ms.Navlin Swain.,Advocates for UOI./LAC Mr.Banls.eyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal, Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. • LA.APP. .LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ].A.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, .LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010

466./2010 637/2010' 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 • 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 24^/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 •105;2/2010 116/2011 121/201] 485/2011 525/201] 554,ho11 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. )-A.APP: LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 .61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/20 n-591/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. !.,A.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. L.A.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./2011 522,/201I 535/2U11 .^.App,No, 119V2008&conncclcdAppealsofVillaBeBharthal• AAPP. No, m/20W&connectodAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' V),App No ],U/Z010& conncctodAppealsof VlllaBcPochanpur. (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& ' B/LA/13417 dated .13.12.2000issued under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUM ' O R P E R % 0;6.0L20r2

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch'of appeals are identical, thcrciorewith the consentoflearned counsel for the partiespresent at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoUflcationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating -to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedoi by,this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof -DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of ihe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact bloc,k coiiipiisingof thirteen Reve.n.ue hslates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. . 3. Agriculturalland of the appellajitsherein in the aforesaid three viHagcsstood 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 lac.s per acre for Blocl< -A- (level field with top soil) and @?I2.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatis.(:iedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheii'acquired •LA.App. IMo. n;):i/2008&cnnncclGdAppeals.ofVillaReBh.-jrthal. LA.App, No. 'mpaio &connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan IV\.App.|\Jo. ir../2010&connHctRdAppealsof Villap,t!Pochanpur ."age 6 of,Z9 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ? 15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in'Block 'A' and @ ^13.36 lacs per 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^ Karnataka Bousing Boardws. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors\, (2011) 2 see 246; An/aiti Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Ann,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs.. State ofHaryana 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 of India AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaigmm, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia si A\nr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of 'Ilaryana & Ors., 2010(9) SeALE 41; Chakas State of Punjab tS Ors., 20T! (9) SCALl'i 362; Avinash Dhamji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs'. State of Haryana A Anr, (2008) 2 SeC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003'titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha cS Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialL-andAcquisitionOfficer Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) / SuC 714; ThakarsibhaiDcvjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, 'A.App. No. & co.nncctfidAppealsofVillageSliarlhal •:.A.App. rjo. 7.94/;'.0.10&• conn(!ct(;dAppp.alsofVillaRC! Dijvvasan A.App. No 131/2010&connnctedAppealsof VillagePocharjpur ' • . " • . Page 7of 29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15; RisalSingh& Ors, Vs. •. UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DPJ 527-(DB);LaiChandvs. Union ofIndia and Am., (2009)15 SCC ,769; Genera! Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. Ram.eshbhaiJivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTeksildar (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; Kapil Mehra (Major General) Ors. Fs; Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors ra. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKimar 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. Union ofIndia, 2010 •

(170)DLT 371.• ' ' . / •:

¶6On the strengthof the;aioresaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'cirguingcounsel for the appellants ihat the locationand situationofthe acquired;agriculturaland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the'developmentid the area overaperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedro the neaiMiiturealone. . 7, It was pointed out by Mr.lLS.Tomar,counsel lor appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway'line ofVillage Biijwasan passe, through the land of VijlageBharthal,dividmg it into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the iGl Airport,New Delhi ij\.Adp.imo. i:jr;/2003&conneaedAppealsof VillageBhartH.a! iA.APP. No. :.>£M/20].0&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan .A.App. IMO. 1.1:1/7.0I0&connectedAppealsof VillsBePochanpur ''age 8 of 7.9 D and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 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 VillagesBh^rthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed I out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension ol IGI Aiiport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillagellharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof 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. AttentionAvas drawnto the aks^ ^^/zra^/mapto highlightthat the boundary of 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 foiled to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired'land to be agricultural in spite of "Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultura!' to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24^" October,1994,

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon R Rama JA.App. No. l.i9.V;'.008&connccladAppcalsofVillageBharthal !.A App"l^o.?.9/|./;>010&corm(?ctGGAfpGaliiof Village Bijv^/asan . bVApp. No. n,]/M1.0&conneclodAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ PaRO 9 of 23 I J> Reddi&Ors. vs. LandAcquisition,Officer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE ^ 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepmg mview the developmentin the area over aperiod oftime and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after ,the •acquisition, ifthe authorities:do not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthereis no buildingpotentiality. i0. Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Shai-ma,lca,-ned counsel for the .appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvaried from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of Ac said variation,these sale exemplarscannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, bccause there is no basis to conclude;that these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as Dcr settled legal proposition .laid down by the Apex Court in A"jm-uMoluDessaivs. StateofGoa «ndAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexe.nplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe inarketprice of tlie land which comes to 757 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therelbre, reliance placed by (he ReferenceCourt.uponthe minimumrates/circlerates lor determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. 1!. Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquired Umd was sougltt bv ^Mr.R.Godar-a,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe I& oo rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the:Goven,nre",:for' allotmem of alternate plot. ,n the year 2000-2001.Keepmg in v.ew the location,situationand potent,al.tyof the acquired land, detennhmtionof its market value is IaAp^No .l-A',App ,Mo'nj MO? Bijw3.san PP MC. uj, .C.10&conn,!cteuAppealsof VillagePochanpur. Page 10 of Z9 /3 sought on the strength of s4le exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalldiaor alternativelyon'the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarkal Phasc--I or ,on the basis of the Pre-- ' DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto, above.

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

23.]0.2002 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 fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land-AcquisiiionAct, 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 ofthe more recent decisions off the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tdhsildar,2010(3)see 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunder.acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasas per the law establishedby the Ho?i'bleSuprem.e Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeai No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin IA.A()p. |\io. Jia'i/2008&connectedAppealsof 'yillageUharthal IA.App. No. ?94/?010&connectedAppealsofVillageliljwasan IA App. Mo. 1..11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • case the average sale price is loyver. Further in Anjana Mohi Dessai v^'. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCO 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different t)pes 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 mosket value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land, is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the layv laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State qf Haryana 2010(1) see 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007: . - ' g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and^ Notifications of Governmentfor land use change show that in future land, can be subjected to resideniial, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectof the 74^' cumndmenl of the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 I.X A. by virtue of which the'^ Municipal Corporation Act was am.end.ed and the area where the land is 'situated, was • • deemeda 'municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was elected from there,. No Panchayat elections were held in the a.rea. h) Refused to apply the law kud down in AIR. Suprem.e Court 3467, Ranvir.Singh and .Anr vs. Union of India and. refusedto considerthe fact that the developmentin the area has a direct, effect on the price thxii a willing purchaser wouldpayfor the.subjectland. '

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent:No. 2 'had also ^ JAApp. No. 1195/20Q8& connpxledAppealsofVillageBharthal tA.App. r!io. &connectedAppealsofVillage Bliwdsan lAApp. No. ,111/2010&connectndAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pago 12 of 29 /r auctioned similarly situated, land as commercial blocks at the rate of about X2.6 lakh and. concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. ' - 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 was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwai^ka Phase

¶11.It is - • reiterated that the land use-of Village Dhool Siras a.nd Bharthal changed and these areas ceased, to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. • I) Ignored Notificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly 'establish the commercial •potentialityofthe said land. In Sangunthalav. -Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it vwas held that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property^acquired the fact whetherthe landhas gotbuildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future ; needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land, being occupied bv the buddings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portionofthe land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining kinds have the potentialof beingput in betteruse as liousesites in the nearfuture." 13, In the brief synopsis by Vccl Pal and others of LA. App, No. j47/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the othprappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof !.A.App. No, ,1195/2008&connectGOAppealsofVillageBharthal ' i,A.App,No. 294/2010&connecledAppealsof VillageBljwassn • IA,App, No, ]11/2010&connea-edAppeal.sof VillagePochanpur urbanizationof the lands inj the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has' been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar ra. State . ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009|SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs, Union of India & Am% 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant, to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale •instancesreliedupon by 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 adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthat thoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence ibi-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,proximityto the villageeic. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai La! vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Umomof India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Cham! I's. Union ofIndia and Anr., (.^.009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.20 it was urged that sharp increase 111 piice in a short period cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reascfns for such sharp increase are expliaincd by producingin evidence the seller • LA.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No.294/2C10&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan I^.App.i\io. .ri:i./?.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur f'ajjc; 11 of 29 and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha^Swaini Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO ratcs/Pre-DctcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decisionof Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis Courtin SushilKumar(supra)andRajSingh . (supra). !6. Sp fai as potentia;lityof the land is concerncd,it v/as urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixingthe mmimum mdicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted . thatthereis no scopefor fatherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancemenl by the ReferenceCourtwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-- objectfonsto the aforesaidextent. '

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by bolh the .sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,what emergesis thatthe truemarketvalue 01 the coinpai-ablelandis the pricepaid by willingpn,ehasertoawilling |AApp,.",iiPs/;>oo8&conr,octndAppea ' i.• P[- 'Jo. ...1-1/^.f.Kifi connectwlAppealsof VillagePochiinpur Paer;15of?.g , - seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass ra. State of Hmyana .& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41' in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-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 of its explosivepopulati.oni.^

(ii) the suitabilityof the acquiredlandfor puttingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; •(Hi) possibilityof obtainingwafer and electricsupplyfi)r occupants of buildingsto beput up on that land; .

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using theacquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensions in the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding. areas of the acquired land which may. become availableto the occupiersof buildings,if builton the acquired land; and •

(vii) lands aroundthe acquired,landor the acquiredland Itself being in demand for budding purposes, to specify afew. " IS. 1he potentialityofland tor the purposeofdevelopmentas also for • buildingpurposesdepends upon a large number of factors. I'V>r the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose ibr I/\.Add. No. 1195/7.008& connectfldAppealsofVillageBhbrlhal; LA.ApD. Mo 7.94/2010& connGctedAppealsofVillageUljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • ' p. j If 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 detemiination 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 appellantscould not be a ground to discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special Land AcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC ' 714. The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behali of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialit}-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 compensationonthe groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving Lhc 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 Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammai(Supi-a).whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction

0.1 40°/o towards development chargcs was improper, '['he pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMohi Dessai(Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lAjApp. Wo. 11.55/2008&coririoctRdAppealsofVillageBharlhgl ' lAApp. No. SM/2010&connECtndAppsalsof VillageBljwasan LA.App. No, 111/>.010&connecicdAppealsof VillagePochanpur' Page 17 of ?,9 7^ 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 Gonstniction activity all aroimd, 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 Ijuyers, 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 inci^eases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it,,thai is about 5% to 7.5%)per annum.. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determiningthe market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved.market value of nearby lands in previousyears (as evidenced by sale tj-ahsactionsor acqidsition), where there is no evidence ofany contem.ppraneoussale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparable'lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the^ rdied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour.tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe;even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reJiablestandardif the gap is only a. few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for detenniningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annucd increase method with reference to a sale or I.A,/:\pp.^lo, !Ly.'i/200S& connficlfldAppealsofVillageBharthE! !.A./\po.rjo B/I/ZOIO& connnctedAppealsofVillageEijwasan , IA.ApD No, .1.U/V010& connectedAppeal;of VillagePochanpMr "The legal position is that even where there are several exeniplars with refererice to similar. lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, Mnll be considered. Where however there are several sales ; ofsimilar larids whose prices range in a narrow bandM'idth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot he resorted to." . 22. It would be worthwliilclo take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands raade by the Apex Coiirt in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as , follows:- "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide 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 wHling vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed befween !;-sasonahleprudent 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 reiteratedtjy the Apex Court in OH amiNaturalGas CorporationLtd. \

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:'- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for developmentin 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 sIom>, steady and gradual, Muthoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. lA.App. No. :.TJiVM08& connnctedAppealsofVillageBhartliai ' ' i.A.App. No. 291/2010& connnctedAppealsofVillaBC Bljwa.san • l-A.App.|\lo.-l]l/20iaaconnectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur PagelSofg acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of:years, the "rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom, the likelihoodofoccurrenceof varyingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurts'^inpricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase. " '

¶24lliisCourtis mindfulofthe dictum ofthe Apex Courtin Hmymm ' StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regardii'ig co)mputation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods:What was said by the Apex Courtin HSTDC (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different siinationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the sam.epurpose, sav for prming of a residential layout, courts 'have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided anda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredundertiaesame notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in tliese appeals sale exemplars in and around acquiicd !and of Village Bhafthal,.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 religiousins.titution,i.e.,Radha SM^amiSatsang,Beas had puichased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price . which varied from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (iix.PW-I/4to Hx.PW-l/lO)which arc basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, • Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landmthe villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds lA.App. No. l.lfJ5/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal I.A,App. IMO. 2!M/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' l-A.App.iM0.1:1.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur' -i (Kx.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-lMto Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited hom 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 Symmi Scitsang, Becis who ,nad purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Vil|age,Mamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh v.?. Union ofIndia, decided on.23.8.2011and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siiigh j-'s. Union of India, decided'on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Viirage •Mamurpur was.discardedwhile holdingthai the same cannotbe ti-eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instant matters,though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailijig I.A.App. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof villageBharlhal l-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof Villag!>Pochanpur "4 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 (]{x.PW-l/4 to lix.PW-l/lO) 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-l/ll) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (lix.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon .including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, : it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticpricc of similarly situated lands in the vicinity,;now it is required to be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO icircularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverninglixatioji oj-' market value of acquired lands •highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Qrs. V, Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabad and Ori, 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as undcr:- '72. IJowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlandwith huildmg.potentialityM-'ith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood IA.App. Mg. :i .19f)/2008& rannfiCtGdApp(;alsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 2g4/;?.01.0& connccVHclAppealsofVillage Bijwasan' IA,App. No. 1.11/2010a connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpilr . Rape 22 of 29 or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land, with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in 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 theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliminarynotificationunder Section "^(1) oj the Act. Further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(1) oj the 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 he made available in ,that regard. A•small percentage increaseto 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 evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland, indicatingthai, there was no immediate d.em.a.nd, as such, for buildingplots even•ifformed in the acquired land. " • ' . In view pi-the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chaml (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisable Lo rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai • Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of l.his CourtmJai Singh (Supra) and Smhil Kumar (Supra) has excluded,the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of iA.App. Nc)..lX%/?.008(4 connfictGdAppealsof VillageBharllial 1A.App. No, 79/1/^01.0&conncctcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan A.App. No. 1.1.1/20.10&connHclodAppealsof VlllaBePnchanpur' Pane m oi" 29 -1 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 acquired'agriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is required:to be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seniorcounsel for the respondcnt/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of-10% per annum is taken from the year 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 and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aloresaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of - the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincrease method;in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a _ icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ot only of a few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, tlie gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate l7"..App.No. ]191i/200S&connoctedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VrllageBijwasan i-A.App.No. 1.1.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' Page 2'l of 29 7^ t escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearb)'land ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar^ learned senior ' counsel for the lesppndent/cioss-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unv/arranted as a cooidinatebcnch of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escjalation @ 10% per annum. After'havingperused the decision in Sushi!Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCoiirt has been grantedand so, by relying Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12%) per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%o 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 minimumprice ofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt !s reasonablecriteriafor determiningLhe market value of the acquired ' .land ana as to whetherthe escalationol 12%c per annum granted by the RetcrenceCourt from, the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f l'''April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining.to the Notification in question'has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the'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 ls tme thatvide afo]e..iaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut that by itselfia not .sufficientto |A.App.Ko 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBhartha.' , ..APP. NO mnolo &, connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan • connectedAppealsofVillagePochanjjiir PagK 25 of 2!) t, presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there beingany developmentin and aroundtlie acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang.Beas heaviiyreliedtipon by the appellantsdisclosetliatthe sale -ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the-evidence on record tliat till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasemprice due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe .acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on otliersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely uponthe sale ofthe land in Village Poehanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance ef Viilagc Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to cslabfishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Samng. Beas in Village Poehanpur.and the sale exemplarof pillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and SI? the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Bx. PW-l/lI) crn'mot be treated to be sufficient ground to gram higlier compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances.Therefore,in view of the afore-reflsrreddictum of-the Apex Court in Haryana State Indma-ial DevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),unilormrate ofeompensaliondeservesto be awarded lor the lands acquired under (lie same Notilicationin the light of the • ntinimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturaliand in' Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentialUy.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what' •App. Wo, &connsctcidAppealsofVillagePochanpt,, i • Paso26of;;.9 would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing' the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this dourt in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasau has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. J'indingof the ReferenceCourt in matterof Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation ol the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectof higherpotentialityof the acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGT Airport,Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a ;100 meters vide road starting from NM-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity oi the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof aioresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredJands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityof DwarkaPhase-L • What persuadesthis Courttoigrant10% increaseover and above market value of the acquired lands:'as assessed by the Reference Court on accountofthe higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the I.A App, No. ll!«/2008 S< connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l7\.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVjllafjeBIjvyasan lA.App. No. inyzoio & coniiHctedAppealsofVillage Pochanpui- ' Pngo z:/of 29 32^ 3/ settled legal position aptlyhighlighted by the Apext Court in Mina NamherwanKhan 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 would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto account the increasein priceattributable to such bidldingpotentiality." 39; Consideringthe fact Uiaf ii would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,;and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is •broad probabilitiesofthe instanteases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem wrth equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminunum prices lor the agriculturallairds for computingthe fair market.valueof the acqiurcdlands as there ai'e no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so. appellantsof VillagePoehanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bhaithal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Smkil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclined,to grant 10% increaseover and abovethe' marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advomtages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question. .40. Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand above the mai'ketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bhaithal and Village Biiwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePoehanpurat par with the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof pp. o, .l.,..i./2o.iG&connmcdAppMl.,of VillagePoehanpur I'iiKe 23 of 29 / the appellants of Village Ppchanpur'are also allowed to the extent indicated'above.Thus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthese threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^^j^J'forthe Category 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per b^hfforthe CatJ^ry'B'" lands in question. h v..

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder UOI 200L (93) DLT 569 are gianted,excepttor the period;wherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ior which periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof m the aioresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar Cjcneral o[ this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 •pkb ' • (SUNILGAUR) ., '. /.• • h' •.7 • • •••• '"I '7-I ' 1 0;. z' O"',' I • ' •AApp, No. ,1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' IA.App, No. 294/2010&conniictcdAppealsof VillagGBijwasan ' IA.App. No. 111/2010&connnclcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pago 29 of 29 3^ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT ..NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr,AmitMa.aii,MrJai Prakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mi-.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S..Negiand Mr.PI.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentinappealsfiledby UOl) 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.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathalc/^^r.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiraii, Advocates for LAC/UOI - Mr.Ajay Venrxa,Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, • Mr.BanlceyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR %

12.01.2012 I C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^''Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 , Page 1 ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento-remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of e'" Januaiy. 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid'judgmenthe rate of compensationassessedis 'perbigha', whereas it should be 'per, acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.'Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedtiiatthereferenceto 'perbigha'inparagraph no.- 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe Gaj,-nedout forthwith." •In viewot the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb I'AApp.No.1195/2008 tSUNILGAUR) JUDGE Page 2

% + % fW IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 155/2010 KANWAR 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