UOI v. Charan Singh & Ors

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union o,f India & Anr.. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb rv- . 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. . . . iN ThE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: Januaiv 06, 2012.

(GRII)-A) l.J\.APP.J 195/2008 (VILLAGE BHARTHAL) RANBI R SHARIV11\ Appellant through: Mr,B.S.Maan, Mr,Arnit .fVlaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, M.Sniita Maan, Mr.R.S'Verrna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and MsAnita Tomar, Advocates, Mr. Rohias, Advocate. Mr. Raghuvi nder (iodara, Advocate Mr.N.SNegi and Mr.H.S,Rautela, Advocate N4r.S.K.Rout and iVEr.B.K.ftoutray, Mr.M.Azarn Ansari, Advocates. MrPanka Vivek, Advocate MrRajesh Yadav, Mr.Dee.pak Khosla, Mi.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjav Mehla.vat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, pdvocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya. Advocate lVlr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.AtuI i'ripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S..Negi and MrFI.S.Rameta, (Advocates fir respondeni in. appeals filed by LJO versus LNION 01' INDIA & ANR. kespondents ] hrouch: Mr.Sanjav Poddav. Senior Advocate. with iVftSaja'y Patiial<, l'/iri''lc trao.tdha'. arid M s.N .'iin 3vain, I\4s K .Kaum ud i kran. Advocates to.r I.. AC/UuT. Mr.A ja Verwa. Msieenashaw Son. MrMukcsh JK.uinar, .I'4r ' K c thi, Mr.Pawan JVlathur, Mr. K unal. Sharina, Advocii i*r .DDA .A.APP,4 Y/2OO8 & CM.No4Uñ/2.UOS (Cross-Objections). LAAPP.132/2OO8 I .'.A}P.4S./2Oi8 L A .API)688/2.o08 c'1.No.599O/2O] U (tross-Obicciions); .A.iI 9P!97,'2OO8 &. (1\4.No.433!2009 Cross-Ohjeetions): i...A.A.PP.70lt2.OU /. C'I.No 51 C)/20U9 (Cross-C)b ciioi ,:

1... \. A.PP.76i.'2O{;'

1..'\.i\P.P.'770/2008:, I A../\p, No. I I.IJ,/2OG.I & connicIed .ppo of ViIIigo Bh A.Aijo. No. ?94/)OiO coruec'ed o ViIio [3i'Nlsfl I &App. ;\

1.1.1/701') & corncu.d Appo o \/iilago Iochanptlr L . LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cros-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/200S & CM.No.3835!2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.61 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.7,75/2008; 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.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM ;No.93 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP81 3/2008 & CM.No. 1 795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 14/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 18/2008; LA.APP.S 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008;. 1 A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.83.3/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-C)bjections); LA.APP.892/2008 & .. CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (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. 1 029/2008& CM No.1734.0/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 103 1/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); I A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046(2008; I.A.APP. 1 047/2008;LA.APP. 1 048/2008& CM.No.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.42012009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008; LA.APP. 1 051/2008 & CM.No. I 726'2/008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.41 6/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 05'5/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & CM.No.752/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No 17259/2008(Cross-Ohjections); LA.APP. I 060/2008;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);

1..A.APP, I 075/2008; LA.APP. I 081,1200% & CM.NoA62/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 084/2008& CM.No. I 7302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & . CM.No.244/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APF. 1 087/2008& CM.No.61 9i'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.APP.] 094/2008; .LA.APP. 1095/2008;

1.A.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Gross-Objections);LA:APP.1 108/008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1109/2008: LA.APP. 1110/2008 & CM.No.3 828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.1 111/2008; LA,APP.1 112/2008 & CM.No383 1/2009 (Cross-Objections): LAAPP. 1113/2008 & CM.No.382612009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1115/2008;. LA.A'PP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008; I A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP. 1129/200% & CM.1Jo.55.0/2009 (Cross-Objections); I A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 & CIyl.No..566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 133/2008; LA.APP.1 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-ObjectiOns); LA..APP.1. 140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP. 11 57,72008; LA.APP.I 158/2008 & CM.No.7774!2009 • (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1159/2008; LA.APP. 1161/2008; LA.APP. 1166/2008; LAAPP. 11 6'7/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1168/2008; LA.APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP. 1171/2008; LA.APP.1 172/2008: LA'.APP. 117.3/2008; • LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. Ii 78/2008; L.A.APP. 1179/2008; LA.APP:1 181/2008; 1A.APP. 11 82/2008; LA.APP. 11 83i2008& CM.No.6933!2009 (Cross-Objections); LJ\.APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.APP. ii 86/2008& CM.No.701 3/2009 I A.App. No 1195/2008 a connected Appeals of Village BhCrthCl '' . • IA Ape. No. 29 z1/20.l0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan • . • l.A.App. No .L1 1/2010 & connectod Appeak of ViHage Pochanour ' Page 2 or 29 >' . (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA,APP. 1192/2008; LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA. APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.No.693512009(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-Objections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1241/2008& CM.No.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008; I A.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; LA.APP. 1280/2008; 1.A.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008; LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LAAPP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746i'201 I (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.953/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 08/2009; LA.APP. I 09/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009; I A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009: LA.APP. 190/2009; LAAPP. 191/2009; LA.APP 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.201/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA. APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 .& CM.No.970/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2 I 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; L.A.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24 1/2009; LA.APP.245!2009; LA.APP.246/2009;. I ,AAPP.249/2009; LA.APP.25712009;. LA.APP:295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; I ,A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.45812009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP 466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.48 1/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2.009; LA. P.491/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.49512O09 L APR 503/2009; LA.APP506/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009: 11 A.APP. 509/2009:. LAAPP.5 10/2009; LA.APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP.51 2/2009: A.APP.5 13/2009; LA.APP.567/2009;

1.A.APP.572/2009; A.APP. 15/201 LA.APP.45/201 0; .LA.APP.48/20 10; LAAPP.404/2010; L . .13( 1: LA.APP.1138t2008; LA.APP;1176/2008; I.A.APP.I 177/2008; LA.APP 1201/200$; LA.APP.23 1/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.l0(30)/96/L B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23. 10.2002, Vii lage B.harthal, Delhi)

(GR1I)-B) 1eservec1_on: December 08, 2011 L:QnouiQiiIanuaJ P± 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- IIIJWASAN). .1)1/VENDER KUMAR . . ..... Appellant Through: ,Mr.R.S.Tomax Mr.Virendra Singh J\.App. #o 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Vivage l3harthal ts.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village [3ijwasari IA.App No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu ci Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S .K.Rout and Mr.B . K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14. 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UO1 & ANR I Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanj ay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms .Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC • Mr.S.K.SoEa.nki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K, Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by IJOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr. B ankey B ihar Sharma, Mr. Kunal Sharma and Mr. Sorner K. Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 53/20 10 LA.APP. 54/2010: LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 .LA.APP. 221/2010 .LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 2.77/20 10 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP.289/2010 LA.APP. 296/20.10 LA APP. 313/201 0 LA.APP. 347/2C10 LA.APP. 348/2010 L.A.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 356/2.010 LAAPP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 406/2(1.0 . LA.APP. 40710i0 LA.APP,438'2.0l0 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 1.AAPP. 72.5/20 10 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 L&APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 80/20] 0 L.A.APP. 99/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) LA.A.PP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 100/20 10 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010

1.A.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 365i'2010 I.A.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 727i'2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 75/20 10 & LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP, 408/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LAAPP. 828/2010 I' (Relating to Notification No. F. 10(30)96-L& B/LA/i 341.7 dated 1112.2000 isued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) ANI) IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhartnal L\.Ap. No. 29/2O1O & connìected 4ppea!s of Vilige Bijwasaiv LA.App. No. 1.1 /201() connectod Appenls of Village Pochanpur U . (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) k Appellants Mr.B .1). Sharma, 1\4r. S .K. Solanki and Mr.SK.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.SB. Kurnar, 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 Mi-S anj ay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC l'vlr.B ankey B ihari Sharma, Mr. Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for i)DA. SEI-1AJ RAM AND ORS. Through versus UNION OF JNI)IA & ANR Through LA.APP, 111/2010 LA,APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 254/2010 LA.APP. 292/2010 LAAPP. 307/2010 LA.APP. 39512010 LA.APP. 420/2010 LA.APP. 466/2010 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010

1.A.APP. 9192010 LA.APP. 65/2011 LA.APP. 120/2011 L1'\.APP. 476/2011

1.A.APP. 523/2011 LA.APP. 536/2011 LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 317/2010 LA.APP. 396/2010 LA.APP. 432i20 10 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 639/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LA.APP. 1052/2010 LA.APR 116/2011 LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 485/2011 LA.APP. 525/20.11 LA.APP. 554/2011 LA.APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 LA.APP. 261/2010 LA.APP. 305/2010 (.A.APP. 392/2010 LA.APP. 397/2010 LA.APP. 433/2010 LA.APP. 5771201.0 LA.APP. 640/2010 LA.APP. 741/2010 LA.APP. 784/2010 LA.APP. 61/2011 LA.APP. 117/2011 LA.APP. 129/20 1 LA.APP. 521/2011 LA APP. 526/2011 LAAPP. 591/2011 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP. 215/2010 LA.APP. 250/2010 LA.APP.. 270/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 LA.APP. 393i2010 LA.APP. 412/2010 LA.APP. 434/2010 LA.APP. 635/2010 LA.APP. 657/2010 LA.APP. 758/2010 LA.APP. 918/2010 LA•.APP. 64120 11 L.A.APP. 119/2011 LA.APP. 429201 I LA.APP. 522.2011 LA.APP. 535,'201 I l.A.App. No. 3.1.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Viflage Bharthal LA.Ap p. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App No 311/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pohanpvr. . (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& 13/LA/13417 dated 1 3. 12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012 Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to. Notification NoT. I0(30,)96-L& B/M/1341 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Vii1ags Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

¶2Acquisition process for planned development of Dwarka Phase-1/' in I)elhi, commenced with the issuance of, NotifIcation of 13th December, 2000 under Section 4. of the Land Acquisition. Act, 1 894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., B harth al, B ij wasan and Poch anpur.

¶3Agricultural Jand of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three -. villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, • i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003;. Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation @ l3.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level -field with, top soil) and , l2.32 lacs per acre for 13 lock 'B' (without top soil). . . -

¶4T)issatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acquired LAApp. No. 1295/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthsl. lJ.App. No. 29d./2010 & connected Appedls of Village Bijwasan l.AApp. No. 1.11/2010 & connected AppeaFs of Village Pochsnpitr . agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Lana' Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation 15.O0 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block A' and @ 13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages I3harthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is atthe rate of Rupees Filly 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 E.ecutive Engineer, Karnutaka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Offic er, Gadag and (ks., (2011) 2 SCC 246; AnjaniMolu Dcssai vs. State of Goa andAnr.,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh Rum and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition .) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; C'hindha Fakira Path (D,) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalguon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002(62) I)RJ 227; Rama Nànd (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India & Anr,, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); (idho Dass vs. State f Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; chakas vs. State of .Punjab & Ors., 20.11 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavdji A 1aili vs. State ófMaharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 1 71; Atma Singh ('Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Jiaryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No, 4143/2003 iiitled as Smi. indu Khorana vs. Gram SabhU .& Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Ràfiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Dev/ibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, IA.App. No. .1.195/2008 1 connected Appeals of Village Bhartha LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan AApp. No 1.11/20.1.0 & connected A ppeals of Village Pochanpiir . . . Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; llaryana State Industrial S . Development corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr,, 2006 (89) DR.J 527 (DB); La! Ghand vs. Union of India and Anr,, (2009) 15 scc 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rámeshbhài Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and Anr vs. Speiai Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authorit y, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatra ' T/zirthkar vs. State of .Màharashtra, AIR 2009 Sc 2238; Kapil Me/ira (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) I)LT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4.284,'2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Orn Prakasli ('dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia,

(2004) 10 scc 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of india, (1997) 1 1 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2() ii; LA. AIP. No.59/2007 titled, as Bed Rain vs. Union of india, decided on 07.06.2011; and. BhuieRam vs. Union of India, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strength of the aforesaid dccisions at th.e very outset, it: was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan. learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudged keeping in viw the development in the area o'er a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone. 7 ft was pointed out by Mr.R.S.romar counsel for appe11ant that I)eihi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage raivay line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two paris, i.e., on the eastern side of the aiJway line is the IGI Airport, Nev Delhi .A.Aop. No. I 29/2QC2 & connected Appeals of Village Bharhal IA.App. No. 291/201.0 & connected Appeals of Viflage Bijw,san IA./\pp. No. 11:1/20.10 & connected Appeils of Village Pochanpur Page 8 of ?9 and Oil I)epots 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-If again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where JUT Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and. Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the lnd of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension • ol JUT Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizras/rn'4p to highlight that the boundary ot Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village I)hool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to he agricultural in spite of Notification of 16th October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agriculturat t residentiaL' commercial/indusirial, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification 0f24t11 October, l.994

¶9H was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the afOresaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Ra.rna LA.App. No. 1.95/2O0N & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A App.. No. 294/7010 & connected Arpeak of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. .111/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 9 of29 . t1v S Reddi & Ors. vs. Lund Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors,

(1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. Slate of Haryanä & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must he adjudged keeping in view the development in the area oer a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not putthe land tO any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.harma, learned counsel for the appellants L1Ofl the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from 52 lacs to 62 lács and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because oF any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in An/an/iWo/u Dessal vs. State of Goa undAnr., 20i0) l3SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to 57 • lacs per acre and since the sale exem plars relied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, thereh)re, reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates for determining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.

¶11Assessment of market value of the àqiiired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& IX) rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates lixed by the UovernmOnt for allotment of afternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the locatio, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value i LA.App. No. 1.195/2003 & connected Appeas of VUJa3e Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/201.0 & connected Appeals of VWage Bijwasan LA.App No. Ui/bid & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur r4) sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Sarnalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates Of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grourids-a) 'ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of . the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Reftrred to in cross-examination of appellant dated 7:7.2007)

i) Does not account jr the Jici that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area fr more thai 15 yea/'s before the Notficàtion under Sectioi 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. c1.) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.200/ issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the JJon'hie Supren'th Court in. Sangunthala versus Tahsiidar. 2010(3) SCC 661. d.) ignores the evidence and qther factors ivhich as per es'tabiished law has 10 be considered befbe ascertaining the t'aiue of the land z1n,dèi' acquisition. e) Does not deal with . dispariti' in va/lie of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court whereas is per the law established by the Hon'bie Supreme Cotirt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira .Pati/ versus Special Land Acqusiton Officer, Civil Apeat No. 5475 of 2007. The lIon 'h/c Supreme Court has specifically held that. Dcccl showing higher rate should not he disregarded in l.AApp. No 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village ltharthal L/\.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village ltijwasan. IA.App. No .111/2010 & connected Appeals o Village Pochan pur S . I S case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Mo/u 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 adjudicating upon compenation upon a certan land. /) 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 which indicate that the market value of the land is much higherthan 15 lac per acre in Block A and ]3,36,000 in Block B in violation • of the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court including in Sub/i Rain vs. State of' Har yana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment ret used to return an actual finding on the issue No. 1 yramedon 27.2.2007: g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide IVotification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhopi Siras and Bharthai was changed and these areas cea.sid to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The maslerplan and !Votfthatzons Of GOvernment for land use change show that in future Land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also j errinent to mention that the , . . th appcllant lead evidence in i )( t of the 74 amendment ol the Constitution of India. w.eJ. 1.6. 1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Càrporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor - wcis elected from there.. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. . ,I) Refused to apply the law la!d c/own in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir .Singh and Anr vs. . Union of india and refused to bonsidr the fi2ct that the c .leveioprnent in the area has a direct c/fret on the price thai a willing purchaser would pay /r, the. suhjct land 1) lçnored the fhct that Res7oncLent No. 2 had . al. LA.App, No. 1195/2.008 connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lJVApp. No. 294/2010 & conneCted /\ppeals of Village Bijwasan tA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . / 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 Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the, possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Thvarka Phase Ii It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhoôl Siras and Bharthai was changed and these areas ceased to he agricultural and came now, under the urban boundaries of Dc/hi State, 1) ignored Notifications dated 16. 10.2000 and 24.10.1994 a/though they clearly establish the commercial potentiality 0/the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that 'the jurpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to he used Jar building purposes in immediate or in near future need y to be considered. in) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be tréateii as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up. residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lancic have the potential of being put in better use as hOuse sites in the near Jiiture. i3. In the brief synopsis by Ved. Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have beer.L provided With a prayer that the appellants of this appeal he treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

¶14Suppiemcnting the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anancl Yadav, Advocate that the effect of l.A.App. No. .1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Villuge Bijwasn l.A.App. No. 111/2020 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur S I . urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mali es/i Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharash Ira, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Me/ira (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 1.76(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-J)etcrmined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the market value 'of the acquired lands and infact th sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and oiight to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to asess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals. 15 Arguing the cross-objections filed by theRespondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 5 L•A of Land /lcquisition Aci 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot he taken as relevant'evidence for 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 purchaser and other factors namely, nature situation of the property, proximity tO the village etc. arc also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosin.g correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai La! v. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpai & Ors vs. Unüm. of India, (1997) ii SCC 423; La! Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009) iS SCC 769; LA. APP.. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi!. Kurnar vs. Union ofindia, decided on 26.09.201 .., it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons•for such sharp increase are explained b y pioducing in evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008 & connected Pppeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViHage Bijwasan LA.App. No .:tll/70i.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge' of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected' in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beäs, 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-1)etcrmined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lal Gliand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (supra) and Raj Sing/i • (supra). 1 6. So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by M.r.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the 'Respondents/cross-objectors that the same has already beenfactored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1 April. 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12%' per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, 'as in Sushi! Kuniar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope fQr further enhancement from the tice of acquired • lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector 'and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the Rcfirencc Court while takiig into co.nsidcrtion the appreciation 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation lO% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. '

¶17Afte considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned judgment the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to a willing LA.App. No. iii ./20D8 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthl li\.i\pp, No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. i 1/2010 & connectedAppeCul, of Village Pochanpur Page iS of2f.l I I seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udlio Dass vs. State of Haryana & 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 I 0/its explosive population;

(ii) the suitability of the acquired la'id for putting tip the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be,'

(iii) /2OSS ihility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land, ('iv,.) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using ihe acquired land for building purpose,' (v existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residental extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;

(vi) benefIts or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, .f built on the acquired land; and (vii,) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in de)'n and jr building purposes, to specify a few.

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose. of development ds also for building P.1JPOSCS depends upon a la'gct number of factors. For the aid purpose, the Court may not only have to, bear in mind the purpose for .1 A.A pp . No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of V2lage Bharthal .A.App. No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. Jul2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Ltc which the lands were sought to he acquired but also the subsequent cvents to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in A/ma 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. 19: Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K.. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 71 4. The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon 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 sitLiated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarlysituated lands 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 ou the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decisiOn of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with .a.d%'antage, 2 1. Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra). while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards dcvclopmeit charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mo/u Dessai (Sdpra) deserve attention, whIch are as under:- li\.App. No. 1.1.5/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharth LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Vilago Ilijwasan I.A.App. No. 1.11/2010 & connected AppeOls of Village Pochanpur "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar iandc, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will he considered. Where however thete are several sales of similar lancis whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. I3ut where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly diffrrent 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..

¶2211 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 follows: - 'It is well settled that genuine and bona JIde sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the honaflde sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition qf the lands situated in the neigh horhóod 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 valie.

¶23Principles 1.0 determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily; the increase in Icind prices depends on four jhctors - situation of the ianc nature of development in surrounding circa, availability )J land for development in the area, and the demand for laid in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect oJ development in the vie/n/tv; increase in prices :ou/d. be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts oi-jumps. IA,App. No. 11.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Vilago Bharthal i.A.App No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Viage Bijwasori I.A.App. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur 'I On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is . high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some poclthts in big citths, due to rapid development and high demand Jbr land, the escalations in prices hcve touched even 30% to 50% or moie per year, during the nineties. On the other extrei'ie, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of. any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnqted fr years or rOse marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a sign ficant dzfference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore f the increase in market value . in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 1.5% 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 reftrs to the general trend in the nine//es, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specfIc evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. I ., . Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing apprc prlate escalation, over the proved, market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition ., where there is 'no evidence of any cont'i'nporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lancL in the neighbqurhood. The said method is reasonably safii where the . reiied-on-sai transactions/ac quisitlons precedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is upiofur tofive years. Beyord that it may be unsafe, even if it. relates Jo neighbouring land. 14/hat may be a r.1iablesianciard tf the gap is only a fi'' years, may become unsafi 'and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. FOr example. /hr determining the market value of a land acquired, in 19.92,. adopting the annual increase method wit/-i reference to a sale or L".App. No. 1 iJ5/2000 & connected Appeals of Vifiage Bhartha'.. .A.Apo. No. 79'1f2010 & coflnected Appeals of \/illage Bhiwasan ' lJ\.Apo No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Focflanpr . acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varyihg periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices qffecting the very standard of increase. S

¶24This Courtis mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court inHaryana State industrial Development Corporation (HSIDc,) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for th acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods: What was said by the Apex Court in HSTDC (Supra) is as under: - When different categories of lands (or lands with dlfferent situational advantages) are cicquired for the same purpose, soi /or ,forming of a residenlial layout, courts have sometmes felt that determination of their value ' with refCrene to previous status or situation should be avoided and i unform rate of compensation should be. awarded for al/lands acquired under the same notflcation."

¶25Undispitedly, in these appeals sale exemplars •in and aiound acquired iand of Village BharthaL, Village Bijwasan of the period in question arc not available and the. solitaiy sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., th seven Sale

i)ecds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, .Bas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from 52 lacs to o2 lacs per acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (lix..PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/i:O) which arc basically between one set of COOWnCrS and Radha Swami Satsang fleas in respect of he compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 I3iswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e,, Sale 'Deeds l.A.App. No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village [lharthal tA.App. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViHage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appesk of Village Pochanpur (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/lO) indicate that its price varies from 52 lacs I to 62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-1/1O) 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 disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of. these agricultural lands in Village Pocharipur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW .-l/4 to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchasér/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purciiaser/vendee of the ?foresaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an. exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale I)eed executed on 25t1i March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.201 1 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Sin.gh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village M.arnurpur was discarded while hdlding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the' acquired 1and. was hanged much prior to thii acquisition, but it has come i.n evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural PUPOS till their acquisition. Thus, it becomes eyidcnt that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knovledge of prevailing l.A .ADp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village llharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless arid until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the consjdered opinion of this Court the sale cxernplrs, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court

¶28So far as the sale exemplar Qf Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-1/1i) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,I72.4l per acre relating to Sale I)eed of 27t1 January, 2000, it needs to he noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1!l 1.) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Lx.PW-1/1 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 he treated as a representative price fr the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no ' sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as 'to whether adoption of L& 1)0 circular rates for the developed lands and IPrcDeterrnined Rates for the alternate iots by the DI).A ought to be adopted to' determine the true market ' value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing 'fixation' of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Redd and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-

¶12lfovvever, in either o!the said cases whether ii be the delermihation of the market value of the acjuired land with bi.iiiding potentiality with ret rence to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood I A,Ap, No ]i/2OO & connected Appeals of Vifiage Bharthal l,A,App. No. 294/:o1,o & coinc'cted Appeals of Vitage Rrjwasan ,A,f\pp. No. 1,] 1j'O1() & connected Appeals of ViHage PochanpLjr ' (. or whether ii he the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentialily with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undevelojed layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to th price which the plots could have fetched f sold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land ith ref'rence to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its vahe by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage fricrease to be given shall not exceed 1/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increised value for such building potentiality arises only vhen there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the nei , hborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, fbr building plots even if formed in the acquired land. 3 1. In view f the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the l)I)A aflcr acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and. transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex COurt in La! chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-I)etcrmined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold !a.tas. Following the dictum of La! cluind ('Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Sing/i (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DI)A rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of I A,App. No.1 19/200 g & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA,App. No. 29/1/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasan A.App. No. 11.1/201.0 & connected Appeak of ViUagc? Pochanpur Page Z3 of 29 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA 's Pre-I)eterrnined 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 incrçase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of I)warka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that e Ter.i if the escalation at the compounded rate of I 0% 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 Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-IT, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Refernce Court is unjustifled.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in viewof the dictum of • the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), êautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market vaite of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that ii may he unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may beconie unsafe and unreliable standard ihere the gap is larger. In the instant ças, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwark,a Phase-Il is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsàfeto adopt the mode of determining the market valUe by providing appropriate LA.App. Ne. 1 19b/200 & connected Appeals of Vitage Rharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur I. escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years. *

¶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 Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ : lO% per annum. Afier having perused th decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentjality of the acquired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been, granted and so ;, by relying upon Sushi! Kurnar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court 12% per annum cannot he reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed.

¶35Now what is to he seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in I)elhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria 'for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the 'date of fixation of the minimum price for ' the agricultural land by the Government w,e.f. jSt April,' 2000 till'the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by' the learned counsel for appellants becausethe acquired land had ceased to he an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 24 October,: 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land usc of the acquired land had changed bt that by itself is not .su'fficien to A,App, No. I 195/200d & connected Appeals of ViIlae t3hertha IA App, No.294/2010 & connected /ppods of Vi! lage Bijwasan l,A,App, No 11,1/20 1,0 & connected Appeals of Vilisge Pochainpur Psge 25 of 29 presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidenceled is lacking on. the vital aspect of there being anydeveloprncnt in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultura.I purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. I-lad there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in question. I3ut, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-l/l 1) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Saisang, ]3eas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-l/l 1) are comparable with the acquired lands and So the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.. PW-l/1 I.) cannot: be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensation while relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in vicvI of the afore-referred dictum of the Apex Court in Haryanci Stale industrial Developmnt corporation (iISJD'c,) (S upra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Goverñmént for the agricultural land in J)elhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fct that there is a gap between what II AApp. No. 1.195/2098 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connecied Appeal y of Viflage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 1.11/20.10 & connected A ppeals of Village Pochanpur woUld he 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 Sushi! Kumar (Supra)' and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by cooi'dinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Sing/i (Supra) and Sushi! Kurnar (Supra).

¶38'i'his Curt 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 I)elhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potenfial and the situation of the icquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality o'f the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airpoit, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleutn l)epots and of Railway lipe passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to I)warka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing th acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm I-louses in the vicinity of the acquired lands h .as sornebow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of' this Coirt, on account of atoresaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, cerainIy assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwark Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant IOY0 increase over áhdahove market value of the acquired lands' as ass Csscd by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiaUty in the acquiied lands is the I,A.App. No, 1 .1.9f/2008 8 connected Appeds of Village Oharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App, Nd; 1.1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Poclianpur (/0 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan K/ian vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, iii these words.:- 'When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the inth-ease in price attributable to such building potentialir

¶39Considering the fabt that it. would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never he achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat then-i with equivalnce by uniformly applying the Government's minimum rices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market va]ue of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while rclyng upon the decision in Sushil Kwnar (Supra), 1 am inclined to grant lO?o increase over and above the-market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court. in these ni atters on account of the al)resa1d locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding 1 0% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to. Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants oVillage Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of I A .App No....1.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Rharthal IA.App. No. 294,2010 & connected Appeals of Villagd iwasarn I.A.App No. ii 1/201() & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is deterñiined 16,50,000/- peçbi-gh for the Category 'A' land and @ l4,69,600/-. per for the Category 'B', lands in question. l-\ h 4 1. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, sl.anttory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001' (93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall hc paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either ide with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. (SUNILGAUR) JUI)GE Januarv 06, 2012 pl< N -;f ;_ •_i! "r ' U LA.Ipp. No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I A.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B . S .Maan, Mr.Arnit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.egi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr. S .K.RoUt, Mr.B .K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N. S .Negi and Mr.H. S .Rautela, (Advocates fOr respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tornar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tornar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr. S .K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak,'Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Arnita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER O/()

12.01.2012 CM. App!. No, 752/2012 (For correction). l'his is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6" January, 2012 Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 IF.,,- I of the application. AdVance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the • decision of 6 January, 2012 is. that in paragraph 'no,: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe cafried thfl forthwith. in view of the aforesaid., this application stands disposed of. SUNIL GAtJR) JUDGE. JANUARY 1.2, 2012 pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page2

* 0//0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on. November, 2011 Pronounced on. January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 15/2010 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/IJOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar. Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA versus CHARAN SINGH & ORS. 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.FI. S .Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul 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