Umed Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orderssee LA.App.No.1195/2008,titled as 'RanbirSharma vs. Union of India & Am.'. JANUARY 06,2012 pkb 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. K • % IN TOE HIGH COURT OF DELHI A1" NEW (GRID-/V) LA.APP.1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BH/vRTHAL) RANBIR SHAR]\1A .....Appellant rhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mi-.-TaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA'erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms,Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas. Advocate.: Mr.RagKiiviiider Godara, Advocate Mr.lM.S.Negi andlVir.H.S,Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout aud Mi-.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.Azam y\nsari, Advocates!. Mr.PankaJVivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesii;^>idav.Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SaniitKhosla and Mr.J~Jhai).ar\iayMclilawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.k,auieli:iv,Advocate. Mr.l,S.pahiya,;Ach;:o^cate-; • Mr.Sandcep;Thald«jr.Advocate Mr.A.1iir:Tr:ipatKi,:vA,dvt>cale,•' MrvN.S.^Negitmd MrJI.S!Rauiela, (v\dvocaicsfor . respondent in ai^pealsfiled byUOl) versus UNION(j!'INDIA& ANk. Respondents Through; Mr.Sai-yay^.PoddaRSlM'iiorAd-'/ocatewith Mr.Sanjav Pathak. Mr.MohMrao.Jadha'v and Ms.,NaA'!!nyvvain, Ms-KXaumiidi Kiran. Advocates for I,AC/UOI Mr.AjayVenra,,Ms.BecnashawSoni.'Mrjyiukcsh • Kumar,Mr SJi,Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur>Ir.Ki.ina! Sharma. Adv6c;,\xe for DDA i.A.APP.4i2/v\008& CM..Na,4096/2U0i: (Cross-Objections),f '\ APP'•h-.'/'/OC'H" l.A.APP.4fi3/2008;LA.APP.58JV2;)08.-fe ' CA^.hio.5Q90/20J0'(l^ross-Objeclions); i-A.APP.()97/2008 & CM.No.433/2009fCYoss-Objcctions);T'.A.APP.7oi/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Crpss-Objectioas);. I.; APP/768/200R;^ t.A.APP.770/200H:, I^a). nyij/riOOS& coiincctedAppRiilscifVillngi:3h:Klh;.il i•^.Aop. Na.S r.orinuci.edAppo-jisorVillai^oBiiwHitiri iA.App.A'.),I.l:i./vni0&connoar.dAppca:iofViilaf!C:l-ochanpiir fjl-'r ?o; rg Reserved on: Novemdcr IS. 20JI Pronounced on: January 06, 20]2^ pf LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2()09'(Cross-Objections);iA.APP.772/2008; / LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& ^ CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; . LA.APP.777/2008;LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.94d/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.805/2G08; LA.'APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross70bjections); 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.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 • (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.^l 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); . LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM!No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM:No.572,/2009 (Cross-Obje'ctions);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008; i.,A.APP.lG47/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& • CM.No.7851/2009 . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420,'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-ObjeGtions);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008 & CM.No.l766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No:i557/2011 (Cross-Objcctipns);LA.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Obiections)';, LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.1073/2008;LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections); l.,.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APR1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.1084/2008&' CM.No.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No,619/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1093/2008;' A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; ' LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA:APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP.ll'l0/2008 & . CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.1111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & • CM:No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; L.A./VPP.l116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; LA.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.1129/2008 &' CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objeciions); LA.APP.l 130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (C'ross-ObiectionsU L-A.APP.1133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008& ,CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objecuons); LA.APP.l 137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008iCross-Objections); LA;APP.]140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157./2008;LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008; , LA.APP.l167/2008& CM.No.802/20Q9(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.l168/2008; ' LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.]]71/2008; LA.APP.li72/2008;.LA.APP.l173/2008; •v. . I.A.APP.1175/2008;LA.APP.l178/2008^ LA.APP.1179/2008;LA.APP.l181/2008; •LA.APP.1182/2008;.LA.APP.1183/2008&'CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP. 118672008& CM.No.7013/2009 lA.App. No. :i 195/7.008& t;onnGctGdAppeal.';ofVillijKC!Bharthal LA App. No. Z91/2010 coririGctedAppeal.?ofVillageBijvvassn • - ' ' LA.App. No. & connnctGcJAppeal.sofVlllagO!Poch'aiiDur' ' ' Page 2of29 (Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.1190/2008; l.A.APP.1191/2008;,LA.APP.1192/2008: LA.APP.l193/2008;LA.APP.1194,/2008;LA.APP.1195/2008;LA.APP.1197/2008; LA APP 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1200/2008; LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.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.l241/2008& 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; A.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.108/200,9; LA.APP.109/2009; -LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.i35/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; rA. APP.. 162/2009; LA.APP.l 97/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA..A,PP.211/2009; LA.APP.224./2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.APP.367./2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA,APP.572/2009; 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; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222,/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245,/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP:437/2009v' 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./2011: i.A.APP. 1138,/2008; [.,A.APP.295/2009; L.A.A PP.447,'2009; L.4.APP.4S0/2009; LA.APP-.491/2009; LA.APP:503/2009; LA..APP.509./2009: LA.APP.513/2009: LA. APP.45/2010; l.A.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.Nb.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM!No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.481/2009; L.A:APP.493/2009; LA.APP.506./2009; LA.APP.510/2009; LA,APP.567/2009; . LA.APP.48/2010; LA.APP.l 176/2008; (Relating to Notification. No. F.10(3())/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated. 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the I.,and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 2672002.2003dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) . (GRJ.D-B) Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). • DLVENDERKUMAR •...:. Appellant Through: .Mr.R.S.Toma.r,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. i\io .119;j/,?0CS& connectpd Appeals of Village?Bharlhal i.A.App.No. 294/7.010& conneclodAppRaLsofVillagt!Bijwasan I.A.App No. l .L.1/7.010& conncctc.'dAppnal.sofVillagePochanpu.' ' { Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.KJlout and , Mr.B.tC. Roiitray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus U01& ANR LA.APP. i:,/-V.APP, I.A.APP. LA.APP. la:app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. r.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010

36.0/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kimiar Pathak, MrMohitrao Jadha\% and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOI, : Mr.VirendraSingh,Advocatein R-68,'7] & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr,Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shai-maand 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. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. U/2010 53/2010. 57/2010

221./2010 246/2010 283/2010 288,/2010"' 296/2010 347/2010 35L'2010 356/2010 742/2010. 361/2010 •406/201.0 . 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. JA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. la'app. La.app. L-.A.APP. la.app',

1.A.APP,' la.app. LA.APP. i.A,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-

72.5,/2010 731,/2010 764/2010 364/2010 99/2010 C.M.No.964/2011(Cross-objections)- . 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 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. L.A.APP.

1..-A.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. & (Relatingto NotificationNo. F. 10(3O)96-L&-B/LA/134I7dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of. the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) ' •• " . AND - - • .LA.App, No .1.19.'j/-2008& connaanclAppealsofVillagnBhartiinl W.App. No. 2'M//.010&conncictud^ppnalsufVillage Bij->f.'asan iyX.App.No, conneclcdAppealsofVillaBePorhanpui-• ,, - .• .. • •, .l-aR(!4of29 % p (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on; January 06. 2012 .A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEI-IA.TRAM 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 to71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant iji R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao •fadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain.,Advocates for LIOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kiinal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA;^ LA, AFP LA, AFP LA.AFF, LA.AFP, J.A.AFF. LA.Al'F. LA.APP, F.A.A]>P. LA.APF. I.A.AFF. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.

1.A.APP. I. A. AFP. LA.AFP. . 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 rATAJF '. 154/201/ rr6572oTo '. 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.APF. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.AFP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.AFP. LA.APP la, AFP LA.AFP, LA.APP, LA.APP, l.A.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, ' LA.AFP; L.A.APP. LA.APP. LA..APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 155/2010 .209/2010 , 249/2010 , 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 57^/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.AFP LA.AFP LA.APF LA.APP. LA.APF. LA.APP. LA.AFF. LA.AFP. LA.AFF. LA.APP. LA.APP, I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.AFP, LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. • 156/2010 5/2010 . 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010

41.2/2010 434,/201Q 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011

429./20L] 522/2011 535/2011 l.A,App, Mo. 1195/2008&connc-cledAppealsof VilkiReBharthal . LA.App. No, 291/2010&conncclodAppnaLsof VillageBIjwasan LA.App No 1.U/2010& conneclodAppealsof VillagePochanpjr. .>• (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) ORDER % •

06.01=2012 ]. Sincc the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by tlic appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, therclorc with the consentoflearned counsel for the partiespresentat the healing oi these appeals, these bunch' of appeals pertaining to NotijlcalionNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/IM3417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedoi b}/ this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof -ly^varkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of Uie Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricLihural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., y\ward No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-20()3;andAward ' . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation'@

3.82 lacs per acre for IMock 'A' (level field -- with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre lor •Block'B'(withouttop soil). ' ^

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheii' acquired I^.App. Mo, 11%/2D08& contificledAppeals.ofVillaRp Bharthal. l/..App.I^Jo. &conncicledAppealsofyillagnBijwasan l-A.App. No. 11.1/2010& connectcdAppealsofVillage Poch^snpiir Pafje 6 of 29 agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt vide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@?15.00 lacs per acre lor the appellants'accjuiredland in Block 'A', and @?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelating to Village Pochanpurhave been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancementof compensationsought by the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dcssai w. State ofGoa and Ann,

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

(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

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Lam! Acquisition Officer, Jalg. 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DPJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & ,Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho. Dass vs. State of-Haryana '& Ors., 2010(9) SeALE 41; Chakas fs, Siaie of Punjab '& Ors., 201! (9) SeALl'i 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCe 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer Anr rv. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 S('e 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjlbkaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, lA.App. l\io, a conru!cU!dAppnals of Villago3iiai-th;i; :..A.App.No. 7.94/;'.010&• connccUidAppealsof Village Bijwasan •A.App. [Mo 131/2010& conncctndAppf:alsofVillagePochanpur ' • ' • Paj!G7of2Si . ' Gujarat and Am\, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) M SCC 175; Risal Singh <& Ors, Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Am\, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and • Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs: Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValUyammaland Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) am! Am\, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandim vs. Allahabad Development Authority, '(2004) 10 SCC 745;- Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of "Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mekra (Major General) '• Ors. Fs'. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20]1) 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 UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627" Satpal & .Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided oii

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

(170) DLT 371. (). , On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was uiged by Mr.B.S.Maan.learned'arguingcounsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order' to appreciate its potential which must be acljudgedkeeping in view the developmentmthe area over aperiod of tune and the same cannotbe limitedt:o the near Mure alone.

¶7it was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel ibr appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line ofVillage Biijwasan passes through the land of Village BharthaL dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi U\.Aop. No. :.10r./2C03&coiinectcdAppealsofVillagelihariha! .1 A.App. No. vyi/20T0&connectedAppealsof VillageUijwasan i.A.App. No. 11:1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 8 of ?.9 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 Fann Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that nordiem part of the land of Village Bharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the westernside of VillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development.of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks ^^/z/m/mapto highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village.Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally tieated the acquired land to oe agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the tiiree villages in question was chaxnged from agricultara[ to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land of A^^illageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notificationof 24'" 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. l.A.App. No. ljU5/:'.008& connnclodAppealsofViliiigeBharthai !AApp.,iMc;.?.9/l/;!OriO& connuclKriAppealsofVillage(iijv,/asap LA.App, Wo. .1.1,1/201.0&conncclcjdAppeal.';of VillaBcPochanpur Pai'o9of 29 ^Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana <& 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 mean thatthere is no buildingpotentiality;

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mi-.B.D.Shaima,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deedsof VillagePochanpurto highlight lhat the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said vaiiation,these sale exemplarscannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethai these sale exeinplarsare oyervahied becauseof any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjmnmiuDessai vs. StateofGoa '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 sincethe sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appeliants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupontlieminimumratcs/circlerates fbr determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. 1!. Assessmentof market value of (he acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis of the L& OO rates hxed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the CJovernmentfor allotmentof altcrnale plots in tire year2000-2001.Keepingin v.ew the location,situationand poicntiantyof the acquired land, delenninationof its market vahie is • '•^•;;PP-^H9V2008&connoaedApp^ LA.App, No. ..94/?0.1.0&conneaedAppeal.',of VillageBijwasan l-A.App No. connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 i dqiyeloped lands in Dwarka Phase-! or on the basis of the Pre-Dotermined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant - Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned Judgment on the following grounds;- a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the yiward No:26/2002-2003 dated

23.J0.2002 being flcnved' 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 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 la.w laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe m.ore recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar.2010(3)see 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining-the valueofthe landunder.acquisitidn. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds produced.be.fore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSuprem.eCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot he disregardedi IA.Afip. l\io. J19V2008&conneciudAppealsofVillageIJharlhal !A.App. iMo. ?94/2010&connecliidAppealsofVillageIJijwasan !A-.App.No, L11/2010& connecU;dAppealsof VillagePochannur in PaR(!,llof29 case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. 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 tyipes of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensationupon a certan land. f) Relied 'upon judgment elated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land, is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the knv laid down by the lion'ble Suprem.e Court including in Subh Ram, vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the. impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 jramed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notijication 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 resiclentiai commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectof the 74''^ amendment' of the Constitution of India. w.e.f 1.6.J993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation. Act yvas amended and the area where the land is situated, was • • deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor . was elected from, there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. ' h) Refused to apply the law .laid down in AIR. Suprem.e Court 3467, RanvirSingh and Anr vj'. Union of India and refusedto considerthe fact thai the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpay for, the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that :Respondent No. .2 had also ' LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & conncclcd Appealsof Village Eharthal LA.App. No. 29'1/2()10& connetterlAppealsofViilageBijwa.san LA.App. No. .111/2010&ranncctodAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' of 29 . auctioned similarly situated land, as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2. 6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped, land. j) The valuation of the subject-land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated, land. k) Does not take into account, the possibilityof change of the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal yvas changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) Ignored Notificationsdated 16.10.2000 a.n.d 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityof the said land. In Sa.nguntha.lav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was heldthat 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 biuldingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number-of buildings on the lands accjuired and the said land being occupied bv the buildings a.re to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential ^ quarters.As aportionofthe land is beingconsideredas W house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of ^ beingput in betteruse as housesitesin the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd.Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,tile factual details have been providedwith aprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunch ofappeals. . 14. Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof !.A,App.No. .1195/;',008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. Mo. 294/2010&.connectodAppealsof Village BIjwasan lA.App. No, ]11/2010&connectedAppealsofVlllagfiPochanpur ' ' ' Pago13 of 29 urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Makesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapU'.Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. linion of India & Anr, 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 instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ot 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 Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of •Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same,cannot be taken as relevant evidence [or determination of the market value unless and until the same is piopeily connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other fectors namely,nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value ofthe acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai La! vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DPJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr., (^.009) 15 SCC 769; l.A. APP. No.656/2008titled as SusMlKumar ra. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase ill price in a shortperiod cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for c-^uch shaip increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthnI LA.App. No, 7.94/ZOlO&connectodAppealsofVillaf?eBijwasan ,• LA.App. No. :iil/?.010&connectedAppealsof VillaBGPochanpur and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay such a higherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DetcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBench ofthis Courtin SmhiiKumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So fai 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 . mmimuniindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Couii; as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be. modified deleting the enhancement b>' the RcierenccCourt;whiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation(S 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. • •

¶17After comidering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe imptignedjudgment,the evidenceon . lecordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe true marketvalue ofdie comparableland is thepricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling I.A..App.No.llQ:i/;;008&connccteciAppealsofVillaBPBharth-.,! • .LA.App. No. 2<^,/20^Si&conneandAppealsof VillageBijwa.san A.App. IJO. ,.1.1/2010a connector]Appealsof VillagePochanpur Page 15^129 >• 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 Hmyaita .cS Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- . ''(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the 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 explosive population;

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

(Hi) possibilityof obtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants of buildings to beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

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

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

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

¶18Ihe potentialityofland for the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large numberof factors. I'or the said purpose, the Court may not only have to, bear in mind the purpose lb)- IA.App. IMo. I19r)/?.008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No ?..'M/2010& connoclodAppealsofVillage Bijwar.sn LA.App, No. ixmolo&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur ^9 v/hich the lands were sought Lo be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Av'mash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Aima Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

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

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land. 20; It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland lor a particularpurpose. But, it is equally tiue that the burden ol 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 with advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supi-a),while takingnote ofrhc 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 im.proper. 'Hie pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under;- L'VApp. No. ]1.55/2008&• conncctedAppealsof VillageBharlh^il IA.App. r>Jo. 2S4/:?0]0a ronnactcdAppaaisofVillagnDijwpsan LA.App.No. .11.1/7010&conneciGclAppealsof VillageI'ochanpur Pi=pl7or?.9 ll "The legal position is that even M'here there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands^ usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. Where hoM^ever there are several sales ofsimilarlands whosepricesrange in a narrowbandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the marketprice. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to. an inference that they are with reference to. dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging , ' cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made . by the Apex Court in Ch'mdha 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 kinds possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and. the Mnlling vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true, value, as agreed betAveen.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 reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Naturai Gas Corporation Ltd

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under;- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for developmentin t:he area, and the d.em.a.ndfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices' would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurts or jumps. lA.App. No. jj.y5/2008 & connficted Appiialsof ViilagG Bharlhal ' • i.A.App No.?.91/2010& connected Appeals of VillageBijwa,san LA.App. No. l].l,/20.10aconnectedAppealsofVlllafjePochar.pur On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the developmentisfaster, M'here the demandfor 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, lliere 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%o to 7.5%)per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general traad 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 lo be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determiningthe 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 m.ethod is reasonably safe where the_ relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the .nibject acquisition byonlyafewyear.s,iMtis uptofoiirto fLveyea.rs. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable.s'iandardif the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and. unreliable standard-where the gap is larger. For example,for determ.iningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual Increase method with reference to a sale or LA.App. •^Jo. !195/7008& connortndAppealsofVillage Bh'artha! ' '.-A.Apo, No. ?.9'l/2010& connnctddAppealsofVillageBijwa:;an ' l-A.Apo No. liyiow &connRcipdAppeal,^of VillagePuchanpMr ,g y,. acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is ^r\ because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from, the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnation in prices or suddenspurts inprices affectingthe verystandard ofincrease. "

¶24This Courtis mind&lofthe dictum of the Apex Court in StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation.of compensation ibr the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods.What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different siiuationaladvantages)are accfuiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value M'ith reference toprevious status or situation should be avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals, sale exemplars in and around acqun-cd land of Village Bharthal,, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionaie not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinsfitutioi],i.e., Radha SymmiSatsang Beas had puichased the agricultural land in Vijlage Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW-1/4to Hx.PW-l/l0) AA'hich are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha Swam.iSatsang, Beas in respcctof the compactblock of^Iandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe cortectmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhich is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds IA,App. No. 11.9S/2008&connGctedAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A..App.No. ;?'M/20.10&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan I-AIAPP. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur- ' ' • ' I.A.App, 1-A.App, LA.App. (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicate tliat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, 'ohe entire land of the sale exemplars --.Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex,PW-l/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of:these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)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, dien it could have been . elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreed to pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha SM'ami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of.land at an exoibitant 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 aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamuipurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters,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 prevailing No, J.195/2008& connectedAppealsof Village Hharthal No, 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan No, j.U/?.01C&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • Page ?1 of 2!) marketprice ofthe land in questionwould pay such a high price unless and until such purchaseis meantfor specialconsiderationand so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (:i-:x.PW-]/4 to h:x.PW-l/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 appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantprice of ^"1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had'fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whcthc]-adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DeterminedRates 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 maitet value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas F, Ram Redcfyami Ors. V, Land Acquisition' Officer' Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2).SCC'305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvahie ofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith-referenceto the pricefetched by sale ojplotsin a well developedlayout in the neighborhood lA-.App. No. .ll9:j/2008 & connnrtHd,AppealsofVillage Bhartlial I.A.App. No. 294/;i01.0& connoctedAppnaliofVillagG Biiwasan IA.App. No. 1..11/V.O.U)a cannectpdAppealsofVillagG Pochanpiir •2^ or whether it he the determination ofthe market value ofthe acquired land with building potentiality with reference to theprice fetched by sale of buildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becom.es ^ inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to befetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any oftheparties, with reference to theprice which theplots couldhavefetched ifsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary 'notification under Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further, where no evidenceofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, ' — ^hen what could be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired land with re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto A the actualuse to whichit was put and increaseits value by ^ a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales of buildingplotsAn the neighborhoodof the acquiredland, indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even if formed in the : acquired land." . ' "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA alteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DetermmedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. I'ollowing the dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBejich ol' 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 IA.App. Mo. ll.q;;/?,008&connoctpdAppnalsofVillagcL'hari|i3l • l-A.App. No. &conn.clndAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. :il/;)0.10&conneclndAppealsof VillagePochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, 1 find that the Reference Court-has rightlynot adoptedthe iDDA rates for allotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether• progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in questionwhile takinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondcnt/cross-objcctorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate.of 10% per annum is taken from the year 19<S4 fill the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificafionfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,sfillthe pricefixed by the Lcind AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), caufioningthe Courts to adopt piogiessiveincrease method in assessmentof the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ot only ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap betweenthe two Nofifications,i.e., ofDwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Ihase-IIis ol sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate l-A.App. M(;. 119;V2008&conniictedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010&conncctedAppealsof Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. m/2010 &conncrtedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 2'l of Z9 escalationover the marketvalue of the nearbyland of the previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for , the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate?bench of this Court in Sushii Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushiiKumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying •upon Sushii Kumar (Supra) escalation'granted 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 minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserve:^ to be further Increased or ^ • not. % 36, Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in questionhas been assailed by the , : learned counsel for appellantsbecauscthe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 •declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be ui-ban.It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year.1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfIs not sufficientto iA.App. No. ]T9:;/2dGS&connfictedAppenisofVilliigEBharthiii ' ' IA App. No. .mpmo&, conncctndAppealsof VillageBijwasan IV\.App.No. ]U,7.010&connectedAppealsol VillageI'ochanpiir l'aKe25or29 presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. 1he evidenceled is lacking on the vital aspectoftliere being any developmentin and around tlie acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat tlie sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land'AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasemprice due to higherdemand,on accountof potentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the .sale of the land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitmionand anoriiersale instance of Village Sanialkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence'to establishthat the qualityand potenlialhyofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Svmmi Samng. Bea, in Village Pochanpurand tlie .sale exemplarof VillageSanialkha(b,x.PW-l/l1) arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the comiguity of the acquired land with the sale instjince of Village Samalkha (Hx:, PW-l/lI) cannot'betreated to be sufficienl ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the afore.said sale mstances. Therefore, in view of Ihe.albrc-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State huh,stria!DevelopmentCofpomtion

(HSmC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Norificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor tlie agriculniralland 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 ;'^-;^PP-^l''-n55/20Q8&connc:ct«dARpeal,,of^^^^^ . -A.App.^0. &connnciGdAppeal.-,of VillageBijwasan lA ipp. No. ].11/20.10&connectc-dAppGais'ofVillagePochanptir /• 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 Smhil Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question, •landing of the ReferenceCourtin matterof VillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road-.startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part.l and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityol the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof this Court, on accountof aloiesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhasc-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarket value oI the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the •I/, App. Nil. 119V2008& conriRctpdAppealsofVillage Bharthal lA.App;No. 294/2010&corinoctedAppealsofVillage[iijv^asan lA.App. No.-1,1.1/7.010&connectedAppesisofVillafjoPochanpur " , ' • • rnRo2/o[29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the'Apext Court-in ML NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords;- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion woidd be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe.increaseinprice attributable to such buildingpotentiality. "

¶39Consideringtlie fact tliat it would be ver>- difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan •never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem witli equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there ai'e no specialfeaturesto treat.the acquired lands differentlyand so. appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bhartlial and Village.Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Smhil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCoun in I these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are pa.tly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand above the marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bharthaland Village 3t|wasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with Ihe appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof ... • • App. No..U1/;.0.1C&connnclodAppoal,sof Villagepochanpur •' the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these three villagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^ighafor the Category 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per h^'fovthe CateJ)ry'B' lands in question. A" *j" . \"i.' \ \

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin tb.e judgment j-eported in Sunder vx UOI [lOOl (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingtiie appeal, ioi which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Thoseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the afo]-esaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the •compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General o( this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglypi'epared. January 06, 2012 pkb l-A.App, No. 119V2008&connoclpdAppealsofVillage!Bharthal IA.App, No. 294/20.10&conncctodAppealsofVillageBijwasan •IA.App. No. inpaio &corineclcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur /via - (• ) /• Page 29 of ;'.9 L J ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI t ; LA.APP. 1195/2008 ;; RANBIR SliARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. I Mr.Rohtas,Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S..Negiand Mr.PI.S.Rautela,Advocate i Mi-.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. ' Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentm appealsfiled by UOI) I Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefor 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 Kiran, Advocates for LAC/TJOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mi'.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kiinal Shamia and ^ Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIJNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 . C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ Januai-y,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice ssofsmTtsssauivaTsrsiE lAApp.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. ' The typographicalerror pointedout by tlie respondentin the decision of 6"' Januai-y, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of tlie aloresaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappealingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe cajtiedout forthwitli. In viewofthe aforesaid,thisapplicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY12, 2012 .JUDGE pkb AApp.No.1195/2008 Page 2

% -I- f % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 154/2010 UMED 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