UOI v. Mahinder Singh

ORDER %

06.0L2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Unionof India & Anr. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb (J/ o m THE HIGH COURT OF DEIiil Air 1\tEW (GRJD-A) Reserved on: November IS. 2011 Fronoiinced guiJqnuqrv 06, 2012 LA.APP.l195/2008(VILLAGE-EHARTHAL) RANBJR SHARJVlA Appellcint Throiigh: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smila Maan, Mr.R.SA'erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohlas, Advocate, Mr.Raghnvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate' Mr.S.K.Roiiland Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsajl Advocates. . . Mr.Pankaj Vive);, Advocate Mr.Rajesii Yadav.,Mr.l^eepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosia and Mr.l^haaanjay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S. Kautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.bahiya,Ad\ocate • Mr.Sandcep Ti-iakiinr.Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate, Mr.N.S.Negiand MrilS.Raulela, (.Advocatesfor respondent in appeals filed by' JGI) versus UMION OF INDIA & ANR. .Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,.SeniorAdA'ocatewith iMr.Sanjav Patnal<.,Mr.l/lon.itrao..^adha'v'and Ms.Na\'iin Hvvain, A4s.K.KaunnidiKiran.,Advocatesfor I.AC/UOf Mr.Ajay Venr,a,..Ms.Becnasha.vvSor.ii. Mr.iVlukcsh . Kumar,Mr S.K.SelhKMr.Pav/anMathur, IVir.Kunal Sharma, Ad\'oe.aie for DDA i.A.APP..412/2008& CM;No,4096/2008'(Cross-Objections),f A.PP 4^''/':'00H-iA.APP.4W/2008;LA.APP.688/2008.fe Ca.1.No.5990/20]0(Cross Obieclions)- j.A.APP.()97/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.7yi/200-8& ^ CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objection;;); !.,\.AP]>.768/200R; [.A.APP.770/2008; Kc), 1iy,')/.?008&connoctedAppniilscif Vil!;igi;Bh;Ki,l!;.|l :A..^rjp.No./94/?(noS, coniicci.edAppo-jl.^oi-Villa(>(; ,!A.App.Asj. l.i;i..';;n.lO&connocu^dAppealsorviilaju:i-O'.hanp.ir j LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);' LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP;773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objectioiis); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP,.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA,APP.785/2008; LA.APP,798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; l.A.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.779/20.n (Cross-Objections); ,LA.APP.892/2008 & :CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.5)59/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & ' CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 _• (Cross-Objections),LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008 (Cross-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; l..A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CN4.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420;2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & • CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/201 1 •(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(Cross~Objections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.-623/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1".A.APP.1075/2008;' LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); . LA.APP.1084/2008&•CM.No.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086.'2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); [,A.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.n09/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objectioas); LA.APP.l] 13/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009- "(Cross-Objections);- LA.APP.111.5/20()8; L.A.APP,]116/2008; LA.APP;1121/2008; [.A.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeciions); LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP. 1135/2008 & •CFvl.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objeclion.sj; LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 iCross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA./\PP. 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.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.1171/2008;LA.APP.11"72/2008;LA.APP.1173/2008; LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008; , LA.APP.l 182/2008; LA.APP. 118.V2008&- CM.No;6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); . LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.l185/2008;'LA.APP.l186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 1A,App. No j 19S/2008 & conp.GctedAppeal.',of Village Bharthal • ' • • . I.A.App. No. ZSi/ZOlO El connected AppeaLsof Village Bijv/assn * . LA,App. No, :ill/.?010 & connecteciAppealsof VillagePochaiiDur' - . ' Page?.0129 (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; I.A.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP.l 193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA'.APP.l 195/2008; 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.1212/200^; LA.APP.12]3/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& 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 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008 LA. APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 •LA.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No,953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; l.A.APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2] 1/2009; 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.203/2009; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP, 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 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,437/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; LA.APP,490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP. 508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.13,/2011; I.A.APP.295/2009; LA.A.P?.447..'2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509,/2009: LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP,45/2010; A.APP.1138,/2008; LA.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 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.3 05/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.481/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.506,/2009; LA.APP.510/2009; LA.APP.567/2009; LA.APP.l 176/2008; (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the I..and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) S." LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BIJWA Reserved on: December OH. 7011 Pronounced on: January 06. 20J2 DliVENDBR KUMAR Through: Appellant .M;-.R,S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh (A.App. i\io .i:9,'V200S& coiinKct(!dAppealsof'VillageBharlhal J-A,App. No. 294/2010&connpctcidAppeatsofVillage!Bijwasan I.A.App No. 111/2010& connGttodAppRal.sofVillagePochanpiir Pago 3 of 29 Advocates Mr.S.K.SoIanld and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14. 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI &'ANR Respondents - Fhrough: Mr.San]ay Poddar, Senior Advocate Avith Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and.Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.SoIanld and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filedby UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharina and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forDDA. ' LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 r.A.Al^P'.56/2010 ' LA.APP.57/2010 L.A.APP, 100/201 0 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP: 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 ,LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP, 288,/20r0 LA.APP: 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 t,A.APP, 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP; 350/2010 ' LA;.APP: 351/2010 LA.APP^ 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP: 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LX.APP;360/2010 LA.APP.361/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP: 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/201.0' LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP: 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP.^750/2010 . LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP, 286/2010 LA.APP.;77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP.:75/2010.& C.M.No.964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51./2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55.'2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP, 277/20.10 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 '' LA.APP. 294/2010 lA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP, 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP,.357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP; 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APV. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP, 722,/2010

1..A.APP. 725./2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 73 L/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 764/201'O ,LA!APP. 828./2010 .LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & oss-obJections) (Relatingto NotificationNo. F. 10(30)9.6'4.&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) • ' and ' , • • ' • , I.A.App, No. .119r)/2008& corincanclAppealsofVillagn B.HarthnI •. • •; , LA.App. No. 291//010&jconnficteriAppealsqfViliagGBijwasan • ' . ' w\,App.No. 113/2010.&.iconneclcdAppealsofVillagePoqhanpur " ' ' ' |-o,4 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 201 ] Pronounced on: January 06 2012 l.A.APP. 111/2010 SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. ; Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Shai-ma,Mr.S.K.Solanki and 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.61, 64,65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in r<-22) • versus. UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Ml .SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocatewith Mr SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao^ Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain.,Advocates for UOI/LAC, Mr.BankeyBihariSharraa,Mr.Kunal Sharniaand Mf.SoraerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA: LA. APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA. API'. il11/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 (337/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 • 523/2011-536/20 H' •154/2010 165/2010. 248/2010 260/2010 293/^010 317/2010 396/2010 .432/2010 . 489/2010 , 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011, 121/2011

485./2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 155/2010 . 209/2010 . 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 •433/2010' 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 ,784/2010 61/.2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APP. m:.a.app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LAAPP-. L.'^v.APP. LA.APP. LA..APP. I.A.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP: LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, ' LA.APP. 156/2010 . 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 . 119/2011

429./2011 522/2011 535/201 1 LA.APP. NO.-U95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageI3harthal .A.,App.No, 294/2010ii connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App No 1.U/2010& copnectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur. (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,YillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR • • ,)0 R. D E R

06.0.L20i2

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the healing ot these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to •NoUficationNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/LA/15417dated 13.12.2000,relating - to geogTaphically contiguous Villages Bhardial, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- • • , //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land A.cquisitionAct. 1894, peudining to vast tract of agricujtural land in one compact block ^• comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, i:e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j. Agriculturalland of the apptdlajils herein in the aforesaid th)-ee villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award .No.28/2002-2003;andAward- . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation ?13.82 lacs per acre for IMock 'A' (level field -- with top' soil) and (g) ?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil). •4. Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired l-A.App. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppeals.ofVillaRe Bharthal. U.App. No. X9J/2CU0&connectedAppealsof ViliagcBijwasan l./\"App.No. .11?../?.0J,0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochpnpiir "age 6 of 29 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 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 acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, reibrences relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhan'cement 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 Engmeer, Ors" (2011) 2 see 246;

(2010) 13 see 710;

(2010) 1 see 444; Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors.^ (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh and Am', ra. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(I)) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaigam, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ.227;- Rama Nand (since deceased) thtough LRs vs. Union ofIndia «f Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana Ors.,. 2010(9) SeALJ'i 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab if Ors., 2011 (9) SCALH 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 «.•§: Ofs, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer Anr vs. M.IL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsibhai Deviibkai and ors vs. E. LA.App. No, a connccled Appealsof VillageSharthai i.A.App. No. 7.94/;'010&• connectedAppealsofVlllagfiBijwasan ;A.App. No 111/2010Si connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pago 7 of 29 yd Gujarat ami Anr,, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175;RimlSingh ; Union-ofIndia& Aim, 2006 (89) D.PJ-527(DB);LalChandvs, of India and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Natural Gas CorporationLid vs, RameshbhaiJivanbhai Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValUyammaiandAm w. SpecialTehsiidar . (LandAcquisition)and Am.. AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar w. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238' Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. .Vs, Union 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRsandOrs UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627" Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) ]1 SCC 423; I.A. APP. No.656/2008.titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

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

(170) DLT 371. strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguingcounsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential M^iich must be adjudgedkeeping in vie^v the developmentin the area overaperiod of tune and,thesame cannotbe limitedto the near foture alone. Mr.KS,Tomar,counsel lor appellants,,hat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway'line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, .-e-, on-theeasternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi ^ AppealsofVillageBhaaba! A.App.lxjo.11.1/2010&conno!ct(-dAppealsofVillaB(!PochanpiK ^ ' 'sh vs. and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Sliiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel lor the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension pi IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndian Oil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also, acquired in the year 1984 lor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development oi Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks i^/^ra^/mapto highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are •contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally :treated,the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16^'' October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agriculturaF to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entireland of VillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe .Notificationof24^'' October,1994, ^9. .It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aloresaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. 1A.App. No. lia.'j/I'.OOS& conneclHdAppeal,';ofVillage Bharlhal l.A App.,IMo.I'-Mp.QlO& corinc?cic!dAppealsofVillage Bijv^asan LA.App. No. .1..11/20.10&connectodAppeal.sof VillagePochanpur . - Pgjjp9 Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitiomOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, {1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex eourt in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofEaryana.& Ors., 20]0(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged kcepmg mview the developmentin the area over aperiodof time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the • • acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplarsare overvalued bccause of any spccial advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjmuMoluDessaira. StateofGoa mdAnn,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplar,oughtto be taken as representingthe market price of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since tlie sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/oirclcrates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. , 1!. Assessmentofmarket value of the acquired land was sougl,t bv Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis oftlie l,& )X) rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determinedrates lixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate . plots in the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand poicnt,aatyof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is LA..ppNo,lXJ/20l0&connnctedApp..lsofVillip;;;^^^^^^^- sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.'

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited of,LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugned judgmenton the following grounds:-aj< "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated ^5. J0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred, to in cross-examinationof appellant dated. -

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland in the areafor nwre 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 TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar.2010(3)see 661. ' d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascerta.inin<s the valueofthe landunder.acquisiticjn. ej Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil.versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The V:)/e Supreme Court-has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shotddnot be disregardedin iAAnp. No. 119V2008&connectedAppealsof Villageliharthal ;.A.Aop.No. ?W2010&conn.cwdAppealsof VillageBijwasan App. No. .l.U/2010&connectedAppeal.sof VillagePochanpur 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 types of sales transactions should ' be considered, while •adjudica.ting upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC ' ' No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material M^'hich indicate that the market value of the land, is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and 113,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v.y. Slate qf Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. .As a. consequence,'the impugned judgment •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.I framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notificationof 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. 7he masterplan and Notifications of Governmentfor land use change show that in futiwe land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the . • appellant lead evidence in respect of the 7 'a.m.endm.ent of the Constitution of India. w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, bv • virtue of which the Municipal Corporation. Act was ^ amendedand the area where the land is situated, M>as deemeda m.un.icipalarea and the m.imicipa.lCounsellor ^ was elected from, there.. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR. S.up>rem.e Court 3467, Ranvir.Singh and .Anr vs. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthe fact that the developtnentin the area has a direct effect on the price tha.t a'willing purchaser yvould.payfor. the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent 'No.^ .2 'had also i./>,App. No. 1195/2908& conncclcdAppealsofVillage ISharthal LA.App. Mo. 291/2010a ccnnecledAppealsofVillage Biiwasan ' . LA.App. No. 111/2010&rannccledAppealsof VillagePodianpur . p-e1? auctioned similarly situated, land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subject land is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land M>as acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase

¶11It is reiterated,that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and. these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and .24.10.1994 • although they clearly esiahlish tPie commercial potentialityofthe said land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(2010) 3see. 661 It \vas held that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got building.potentialityto 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 acciuwed and the said land being occupied bv the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired,for purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportion,oj the land,is beingconsidered,as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture." , ' 1J. In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the factual details have been providedwith aprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappeaisin thesebunchofappeals. . 14. Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof !AApp. Mo. .1195/2008&conrcctedAppealsof VillageBharthal !.A.App. IMo. 294/2010&conilGctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lAApp. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur " ' ' urbanizationof the lands in the Villages in question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Dattatniy Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapl!Mehra (Major General) iS Ors. Vs, Union -of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and. infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ot the acquired lands. 1htis, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sarijay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale I3eed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence loi" 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 fectors namely,nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpat& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand. w. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil KumMr vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in piice in a shortperiod cannot be taken to be realisticuntilreasons for such shaip inciease are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage BharthnI I.A.App. No. ?.94/2010& connectGdAppeal!:ofVlllapieBijwasan iA.App. No. l-il/?.010& connectedAppeal,sofVillaRePochanpur and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeof the usua_ prevalenttrend in the marlcetwouldpay suehahiglrerpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration,'ihus. it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre- .. DeterminedRates cannot be countenanced-in view of tlie decision of Apex Court in La! Chand (supra) whidv has been followed by a coordinateBenei,ofthis Courtin SushilKumar(supra)andMajSingh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the nrinimumindicativepriceofthe agricultWalland by the Governmentas on I Apiil, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @.12% per annum, marl<et value of the acquired lanSs has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in SushU Kumar (supra) appreciation@1Q% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted tliatthereis no scopefor fuitherenhancement;&om the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisifionCollectorand so. the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the •enceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @10% per annunr and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. •

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the s.des and upon closeperusalofthe impt.gnedjt,dgn,ent.the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparablelandis thepricepaid by w.llingpurchasertoawilling •.A.,App. .0. n9V200^ ... IA apT'1°'uvfcloa • '^ a a,ntu^ctedAppeal.,of villagePochanpur Page 15 nf 29 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 Haiyana Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the toyvn or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, ^''^^^g^-ousor a:ny other kind of importanceor because of its explosivepopulation;

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

(iii) possibilit)^ofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants of buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsorthe 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, r health care centres, or the like in the surrounding \ areas of the acquired.land which may hecom.e availableto the occupiersof buildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in dem.andfor building purposes, to specify afew. " IS. 1he potentialityofland for the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. For the said puiposc, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppeiilsofVillageBharlhal I.A.APP. No. 294/2010& connGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan • • LA.App. No. 111/2010&conneciedAppealsOfVillagePochanpur ' Page 15 of29 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 determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Aima (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 Acquisition Officer& Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714Ihe 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 groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex CourtmKiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage.

¶21Apex Court in VaUiyammai (Supi-a),while takingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was im.p]-oper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- i.A.App. No. 11.55/200S& conricclRdAppealsofVillage Bharlhal IA.App, Mo. ZMp.OlO&connGctedAppnalsofVillage Bijwasan . .LA.App.No. 11.1/7.010&connGdccI AppealsofVillagePochanpur m "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars Mnth reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a hona fide transaction, mhU he considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar larids whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of 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 oh account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to. " It 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 Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as . foliows;- "// is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactionsproximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired, lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the' true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value."

¶23Principlesto determinethe market value of the acquired lands sis reiteratedby the Apex Court \n Oil and Natuni! Gas CorporationLtd,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under;- "Prlmarlly, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, a.vailabllityoj land,for developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof development in the vicinity, increase in prices'would be slow, steady and grad.ual,withoutany suddenspurtsor jumps. l-A.App. No. 1195/2008& connoctedAppRalsofVillageBharihi)! i.A.App. No. 2.94/2010& connnctedAppealsofVillageBljwa.san LA.App. No. i:i/2'0.iaSi connectedAppealsof VillagePochar,pur m On the other hand, in urban of semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land, is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties '. On the other extreme, in rem.ote 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 I %> or 2% per annum, lliere is thus a significant difference in increases in miarket value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in m,arket value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to I5%> per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be~ only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%)per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase' in prices. Where there are 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 appliedwoidd dependupon 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 evidencedby sale transactions or acquisition),where there is'no evidenceofany contem.poraneoussale transactions or a.cc(uisiti.onsofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the, relied--on-sale ti'ansactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only a. few years, that is uptofour to-fiveyears. Beyond, that it may be vm.safe, even ij it. relates to a. neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. Tor example,for determiningthe iTiarket value of a land., acquired-in 1992, adoptin.'^ the annucd increase method with reference to a sale or lA.App, No. 1195/200!?&connficledAppaalsofViiiagR Bhartha! lA.Apo. No. 29/I/2010&connnctedAppealsofVillage Eijwa.san '..A.App No. .1.1.1/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePachanpMi" Page :19 o: 29 m acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of cmnual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceof varyingperiodsofstagnationin prices ot suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase. "

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for; the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods:What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under;- ''Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different sivuationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the same,purpose, sav for pnning of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe a^vardedfor alllandsacquiredimderthe same notification."

¶25[Jndisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired 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 religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSymmiSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price • which varied from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacsperacre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/JO)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang Beas mrespectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds l-A,App. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof Villageliharthal •r.A.App. No. 294/20.10&connectedAppealso( VillageBijwasan LA^App. No. 1:1.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale .exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking. Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited irom him as to why he had agreed to pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.el, Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land, at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25''' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh ps. Union oj India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamuipui was discarded.while holdingthat the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands,,

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands ^ was changedmuch priorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used'foj-agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing I.A.App. No, 1,195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ' LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lAApp, No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsof ViilaEePochanpur =< Pagc! 21 of 29 market price of the land m 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 (]ix.PW-l/4 to Itx.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar'of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (LZx.FW-l/11)was • situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (J:x.PW-l/l 1) 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 exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developed'lands and Pre-DetcrminedRates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market Value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "1.2. IJowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationoj the marketvalue ofthe acquiredland,yvith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a M'elldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood lA.App. Mo, .1.195/2008& connected.AppealsofVillage Bharthal ' LA.App, No. 294/201.0& connpcledAppeal.';ofVillageBiiwasan lA.App. No.1.1.1/201.0ft connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir m

¶31or -whetherit he the determinutionofthemarketvalueofthe acquired land, with buildingpotentiality with 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 preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired, lands becomes available, •then 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 LAUct, accordingto the actualuse to which it M^as put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentia.lityascertainedon 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 landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue-for such buildingpotentialityarises only when, there is no evidenceofsales of buildingplots in. the neighborhoodof the acquired land, indicatingthat there was no immediate d.em.a.nd, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights,-the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supia), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DetcrminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. I'ollowing the dictum of Lai-Lhami (Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of lA.App. No. ll'K/2008&connnclodApppalsofVillaficL'harlhsl Lrt.Afjp.No. &connoclodAppeal.';of VillaBt;Bijwa.san LA.App. No. M.1/20.10&conriHctpdAppeal.';of VillagePochanpui the undevelopedacquired,lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has lightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallands in question. • ^ 32. Now what is required,to be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue 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, learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe 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-I and the instant Notincationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris morethan the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold gooti in view oftlic dictum ol^ the Apex Court in La! Chand(Supra),cautioningtlie Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemetiiod in assessmentof tlie maricet value of tlie acquiredland'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may |-)e unsafe, even if it relates to aneighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafe' and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is lai'ger.In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,.e., ofDwarka Phase-Iand Dwarka . Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsand therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe , mode of determining tlre market value by providing appropriate .i^.App.N". 119^2008&connectGdAppealsofVilLg,Bharth.l A.App. No. 294/2010&donncctodAppealsofVillaBeBijwasan l-A.App.No. 111./2010&connertt!dAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' - cscaJationoverthe marketvalue of the nearb)' land 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 coordinatebench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused 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 ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushi! Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the Reference(]ourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum.In this view of the niatter,the cross-objectionsotthe 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 ofthe 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 Notifi.cationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertainmg to the-Notili-cation in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquired land had ceased to be an agriculturallandliy virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994 the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientlo ,!A.App. l\io, : 195/2008& connectGdApi^eiilsofVillage Bhartliiii i.A.App. No. iiM/ZOlO& conncctndAppealsofVillage Bijwasan !-A,App.No. ]11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillaBC!Pochanpur ' pape25of29 m presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosetliatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agricultui'alpurpose

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been in piice due to liighei demand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, tlien appellantscouldhave laid theirhandson othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale of the land in Village Poehanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance • oi-Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to , • establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplai'sofRadha Swam, Satsang. Beas in Village Poehanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamallcha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/ll) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to gram higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale mstancfcs. Therefore, in view of the aforc-referreddictum ofthe •: Aptj Court in Haryana State IndumialBevelopmcmCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded . tor the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agxicuiturarland ii Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to hight. potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is agap between what -vApp. No. .UI/20.10&connecK^dAppealsofVillagePochanpii, • • ' I'age 26 of 2.9 ler 6\ <3 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 fmd 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).

¶38I'his 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. J'indingof the ReferenceCourt in matterof VillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation ol tlie acquired lands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I fmd that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passingthrough Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part U, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Mouses in the vicinity oJ; the acquiredlands has somehow missed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof aioresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume higherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhasc-I. What pcLsuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market value of the acquired.lands'as assessed by the Referenee Court on account ofthe higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the JA.App, No. 1195/2008& coniifictcdAppealsofVillage!Bharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagel!ijv,/asan IA.App. No;111/2010&connectedAppealsof Villagepodianpur p : ue settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buddingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market •r value takinginto account the increasein.price attributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan nevei be achieved in the matters ot assessinglair compensation,it is broadprobabilities'ofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem wnh equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum pi ices tor the agriculturallands for cotuputingthe &ir marketvalue of Ihe acquired lands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at pai with tneir counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providmgahigherbuildingpoteniialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertaininglo Village Bharthal and Village Biiwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof •:.. iP ( --""ipctcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur PaBfi 23 of 29 % the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these three villagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perj^^or the Category A land and @?14,69,600/-per bigha for the Category '13' lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the period'wherethereis adelay in filing'theappeal, ior ^^'hlch periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar Cjcneralol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. • . January 06, 2012 pkb ' ' (SUNILGAUR) / ' ./ . . '/• « 0 ! (yf ^ ' -AApp. No. ,1195/2008&connoclcdAppealsofVillage;Bharthal /..App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan IVV.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mi-.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana, Advocate Mr.N.S.^egi andMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mi-.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith ' - Mr.SanjayPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, • Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. f \ COI^M; HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correctiom). This is an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^''January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice 1195/2008 , Page1 r - A ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellant^: The typographicalerrorpointed out by the respondentin the decision ot 6 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aloresajdjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No: 1195/2008,be read as 'per acre'. Necessary, corrections be caj-riedout forthwith; In viewoftlie aforesaid,tiiisapplicationstandsdisposedof. c JANUARY12,2012 . JUDGE pkb iAApp.No.1195/2008 ===— Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 48/2010 UOI Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate forDDA versus MAHINDER SINGH Respondent Through; Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate .Mr.Sandeep Thalchur, Advocate Mr.Atu] Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR