Tek Ram v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. J /O, © * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludament ReservedOn: 10^^August 2011 ludqment DeliveredOn: 19^'^September. 2011 + LA.APP. CM No.6549/12 999/2010 & Oil (Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH Through; Ivir.B.S. Mr.Deep . Mr.N.S.' Appellant Mann, Advocate ak Khosia, Advocate and Negi, Advocate. /s. UOI & ANOTHER Tu L- ^ Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate & Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Kaomud Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AN + LA.APP. 961/2010, . No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100 LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.. 1036/2010 & CM No.12865/2 6/2011 & CM No.6756/20:. No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/201] 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. (Relating to Notification u/S Award No, 06/2002-2003, Villa LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM 7/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, APP. 1010/2010, LA.APP Oil, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP. I, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM II, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP. /LA.APP. 3.47/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP , LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. ec. 4 dated

15.09.2000 & ge-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) AK D LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattdrs + LA.APP. 57/2011 :& 83/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 LA.APP. 132/2011, 164/2011,;. LA.APP. 200/2011, 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011 LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011 LA.APP.349/2011& CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011 LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 (Relatmg to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whether the Reporters of to see the judgment? CM IMo.12871/2011, LAiAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP-LA.APP. 240/2011, LAiAPP. LA.APP. 243/2011, LAIAPP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011 14/2011. 'See; dated 30:07.1998 & lage-Bhaiswa Jahangir.Puri) local papers may be allowed

¶2To be referred to Reporter or hot?,

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. !• ,

¶1I proceed with an apologyto the reader by referring,to a , notification issued later in. 3oint of time,.- and then , to a notification issued prior in poirt of time; but the reason is that • thelearned counsel for arguments with respect to the land owners had addressed: notification issued later and! had required price to be ..|U^ reduced pertaining to ;the notlfication which was issued e . 2. Land measuring 758-01 arlier in point of time. \ ! bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhaiswaJahangirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page2W,22 i iflll iiili' to a notification dated

15.09 2000 issued under Section 4 of t^^e Land AcquisitionAct 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'RehabilitationofJJ Cluster', Tjhis was followedby adeclaration under Section 6 ,of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai land at ^2,87,9.16.66 per bigh lakhs per acre i.e. fair market at?13.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied, with a Acquisition Collector, the land Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market value of the acquired a, which is equivalent to ^3.82 i/alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed the learned Land Acquisition 5sessment made by Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference.Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008titled Raj Sinah Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair marketvalue of the acquired land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or ?14,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoras well cs the Learned ReferenceCourt, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price f6r agriculturalland fixed by the Government as on 01.04.20C0, notified vide: Circular dated

11.09.2011. Differentdestina :ions were reached inasmuch as Collector, while assessing compensation, did not grant cippreciationfor the period from

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the .learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with referenceto the base date 1.4.2000 and the pri:e ?13,82 lakhs per acre; LA.App.No!999/2010& connectedmaters Pages of22 "n

¶5Another parcel of land ad-rneasuring. 929-05 bigha, situated in the same reveiiue estate"^ of village Bhalswa ursuant to a notification issued d Acquisition Act 1894, dated Jahangir Puri was acquired p under Section of the Lar

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior by a declaration under Section 1998. After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed fair market ?2,33,333 per .bigha which is acre.

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The [.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.inA/2008 titled Chandrawatt l/^r. Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair marketvalue of the acquired land at m,46,670/- per, acre.. The differencei in the same reason as noted destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 alue of the acquired land at equivalent to ^11.20 lakhs per notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. Collector adopting the land rate with effect from

1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement @ 11% per annum for ,the interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference challenged the assessment m LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmat:ers •-O . « Court by way of the appeals above.

¶8On behalf of land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance Wc s placed on following documentary evidence:-

(a) The rate notified b/ the L&DO vide notification nibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in "esidentia! commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which, is stated to be close to village Bhalaswa Jahangir Puri, was fixed at.?5830/- per square meter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per acre it was urgec that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should -be entitled to enhahceid compensation in sum of ?1,17,96,200/-per acre. dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by

(b) The rate charged by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution and cross objections mentioned No.705 dated

23.11-.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby. MCD decided to allot developed plots to the square meter Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ?4,500/- per sqi transporters @ ?425/- per 3it PW-3/2, a c6py of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be material and good evicience. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmaters Page 5 of22 documents, learned counsel for land owners argued that rate stated in resolutions afprenoted, which was Applicablefor the: year 1976, • market value of developed 7/vper acre and it was urged on is made on account of the r undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to ?=8,59,928/-per acre in the year 1976 and increasingthe same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be ?24,76,592/- per acre

(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on the would evidence that fai land comes to ^7,19,85 that even if 50% deducti development costs, fo 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/; on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav for land owners also auction record of plots in Flbhini ResidentialScheme in the year 1997-98 and and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, "the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in JahangirPuri at a price ranging between ^23.7:; according to. learned coi lakh to ^28.4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of ^"14,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged, that Id be effected therefrom d agricultural land,

(d) Relying on a saledeed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes 6,169/- per bigha. It was suitable deduction col pertaining to undevelope bigha was sold

(g) learned counsel urged th to ?56,93,163/- or LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmat:ers € " \\ contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, after making a reas development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another. onable deduction towards ermine the fair market value ural land in village Bhaiswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpurwas sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- p^r acre was also relied upon.'

(e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w be sold on 05.08.1996 ;ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a 'hereund.er land was agreed to ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land wias in the revenue estate of village BhaiswaJahangirPuri and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of land in the said villageas ofthe date ofthe agreement to sell i.e. 5.8.1996.

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay . appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhaiswa Jahangir ^oddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price, of 40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given on said value, notificationunder Section;.;4co thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would adjoining village or to adopt LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmat the price as on the date of the mes to ?1,94,782 per bigha, and price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the he price of developed land for ers fixing mari<et value of having a vast area. Learne learned Land Acquisition C marl<et value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 and Court.

¶10it may be noted that wh above captiOned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the Dllector has assessed fair price much higher than the one so has the learned Reference submitted that in response counsel for the land owners 1/5 Union of IndiR in which he h area while proving the Aks 5L Jahangir Puri. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated, in en judgment was reserved in the 19^^ August, '2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition App,No.266/2008 titled laiS/noh l/s. UOL&Anr. in which similarargumentsas were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to arguments of learned the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier oczasion may be treated as his response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come-outin the depositionof Shri Trilok Chand {HalqaPatwan) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008titled Rai Sinoh as explained the topology of the ra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa rould reveal that village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadii and Haiderpur are situated in the 'AVi Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puri. West and villages Bharola • n the South of. village Jahangir LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmat :ers Page 8 of22

12., I may additionally notfe that the lay out plan, of the National Capital Territory | of Delhi, published by Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purr is situated on th ^ eastern side of GT.Karnal Road i.e. NationalHighwayNo.1. VillagesBadii, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, MamoorDur(Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.1. '

¶13It needs to be highlightedthat whatever development took place in the revenue es1:ate of villageJahangirPurl, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to; urbanization was of a weak village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in •potential price increased due nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinoh l/s. Union nf india 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 4<?i, resettlement colony called Jah it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period cf emergencyi.e. the year 1975-

¶76It has to be remembered that the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlementof.slumand J.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.^ Anr. which was reserved on

0.266/2008 jai Sinati l/s. UO!

12.8.2011 had yet to be pronouncedon 19.8.2011,when instant appeals were reserved for judgment,has since been f)ronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 arid I. would highlight that v\ hile assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. Norti:i:-We5 villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan,. Holambi Kalar Bawana, I had noted t t Delhi being revenue estate of Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, , Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters f) •constituted a 'V at the point .Road i.e. NH-1 Rohtal< common point,, proceeding iviandi. It needs to be highligl Puri is outside the 'V aforesc of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi hted that village Bhaiswa Jahangir id and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1. i

¶15In the.appeals relatingto the said 10 villageswhere land llfferent notifications issued from were acquired pursuant to:d time to time I had dealt with notificationsissued in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) and the sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on , which learned counsel for reliance upon as noted in sut land owners have placed -para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011,,I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced here

¶21The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh is recorded in paragraphs 21 to jnder:- is predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ?26.75 lakhs ^63.478 lakhs per acre Court has rejected per acre and the latter The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religip 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was js trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who , . ^ deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledgethe land was purchased for religiouspurposeand was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise ,LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters m ID # been held not to be reli fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S Organization" as per ister Annie, the secretary of pay the price for. the sal only plot of the requ the organization stated that the organization had to i piece of land as it was the site size suitable for requirement,ofthe organizationand is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 {!) see ,717 Land Acouisiti Isti Rohini & Ann (Refer on Officer Eluru & Ors. 1/? para 6) and 2009 (14) see 369 i\^ohd. Raufuddin /pind Acquisition Offlrpr (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a said,deed which are tendered in evidenceby virtue of Section 51A of the LjA.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to ri r-rv-* I -I-IA ^ i . . . determine the market v reason there may which have led the buye ^alue of land in an area for be special circumstances ^ , to pay a higher price. The true test is the price wl^ich a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informedseller without being influenced by any special ciicunistancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpiece Or »«• i-v-\ tit of land. An. informed bL studied the market and yer would be one who has . - has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a nn\r\fA t . . . - . . a gopd index of fair mark area. I would be failing i Union of India had relied

20.5.2002, which was et value of the lands in the '1 do not highlight that the upon the sale deed dated J " --"r .pccepted by the learned o? n pertainingto the notificationdated 2/.1.2003 where-und^eragriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan ,was sold by . an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much .kisserprice i.e. ^17,74,109/- price which comes to p3.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and U8 89 lakhs per acre.for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from t ie reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with \(vhich I concur, afore-noted reasons in para a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc bove would be additional sale deeds would _ ^— evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land; have been acquired and when the acquisition is of c^i ft f I , . such large -an area, it v reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the would make all the more a )ect on sale deeds having - transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya iDeing the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.^ [sincB.c/gcqbsoc/)thru LRs Vs, UOl & Ors. It was

0.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh highlighted that the sale had purchased 8 bigha ^deed therein by which L&T and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of iis factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evide area, was rejected by t question, with suitable d Tce.of value of land in the Te Court and the price in Bduction on account of the Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as t\r parcel of land being large, was accepted by the ie instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair marketvalue. The argumentignoresthe reasoning in the decisionof the Division Bench in paras 37 to ^ D 1 ft A t-y-v » • ... ' 38' wherein the Division value in the sale de^'d onBench, did not accept the ' its own logic as indicative therein was reduced by would be the same as wo reference .to the averag of, the market value, but found that if the price 1/3''^ the price arrived at Jld be price arrived at with e rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatte^-s ' Page12 of22 produced by the Govern ?1,3.7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ?3,26,600/- per bigha ar ment were giving a price of sale deed under Bd the land gave the price d the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of f l/S""^ would be deducted ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of id notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995

16.1:L.1995 Court determined fair marl<et value as of the said dates at same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted inherent ^2,15,1.60/- per bigha, from the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 1993 a Section

¶4of the Land contradiction in the valu the 2 sale deeds and th destructive evidence of fair market value."

¶16For,the reasons therein, e of the land price as per s Itself is intrinsic mutually the 2 sale deeds reflecting reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village. Bhalswa jahangir.Puri.

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalsw a jahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ns lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003whereunder4^6 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at. ^5,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ?15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/20108cconnectedmatters difficult to comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a.puzzlethat in 1996 the price was ns lakhs per acre and 7 to ^15.7 lakhs per acre. I ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the leiarned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has dp special considerations n informed willing buyer ned that the said price was for Dt the price settled between an an , informed willing seller . without being influenced by special needs pertaining to a particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidencewherefromfair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed.

¶19I have discussed this issue in my decision dated

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008iai Sinoh !/?. um Anr i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence, of neither the buyer nor the seller being well-informed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by mi3 hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision; I reite

¶20As regards. auction rat situated in the Sanjay Gandh -ate the same. : • es of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, I do not find any substancein the arg^umentsof the learned counselfor the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned ReferenceCourtcontainedin paragraphs29 and 30 which are premised oh the decision of th BSupreme Court reported as La! LA.App.No.999/2010&.connectedmattji:srs Page 14 of.22. ~:tr ChSnd Vs. Union ofIndia 20()9 (ISX SCC 769. Similar ii the reasoning pertaining to the e ofresidentialplots orflats by ^idence relating to auction rates DDA. ^

¶21In my decisiph dated-2p.8.20^n l^^App.No.266/2008 lai Smqh Vs. UO! &Ork, | hcd extensiyelydiscussedthe Jaw declared:by the:Supreme Court in LaLChinds caseswith reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DDA an and findings in para 29 to 31 are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now we do not have evidence as to what was the extent^ofplotted larjd sold by DSIDC or DDA with bv nl^nr H Industrial Estate developed bv D^^inr .nH ResidentialSchenle developed 20% or 75%, we do not,know, has resulted in the same. by D3idc and Narela R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence eveloped plots were allotted by d DSIDG. Relevant observations )f the decision in :./aA5Zw^'scase fari-nrc o • "csuiLfcju ifi tne Same actors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in ^ t-ne Chand's case (supra), which. render this evidence as the value of land in.thesubjectcases. most unreliable to determine

30.: it is no doubt true, Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area and Narela ResidentiaT S acquired a building po would be what would buildingpotentiality woul

¶31Ihold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keepinq m view the observation and the findings of the uprenieCourt in La! ChancfF, (supra) has rightly rejected said evidengej^sreiiable. On the issue of ?^de'of the:value, Ipromlsfth^ sfeN hp rib with the same while I LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatteri • . I as held even by the learned: with development of: Rohini Residential Scheme' cheme, the. subject lands had tentiaHty, but the question be the value to which the d translate itself., Page 15 of22 J \ ; 4rB

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chancts case (supra) Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless was too . inchoate wherefrom fair marl<et value could be crystallized. •

¶23. 1reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Saijay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lease-hold property under L&DO is transferredby the perpetualIpsee,sufficewould it be to state that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, 1 :liscussed discarded with where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhancedwith referenceto L&DO rates noting that Iam concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring: 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha. 25, From the topologyof th(5 area and as per the testimony of Trilok. Chand (Halka Patwar ) who appeared as PW-2 .in LAC NO.112A/2008it emerges tha: village Burari is on the east of village, Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil and indeed the plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and Burari are-separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk, from the. Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous ourudwara Majriu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparatedby 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters thus the fair market value of two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessing the fair •in village Burari, which was a dated

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I land on a particular date in the market value of the land situated cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of lad considered material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of.LA./.ppeals, lead matter being;LA. Appeal No.971/2008titled Rsjbd!& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, In the said decision, 1ha of agricultural land at ?11,60 d assessed the fair market value ,580.82 per acre for Category A land, no,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464.65 per acre for Ca notification dated

24.7.1998. notification dated

18.07.200: tegory C land pertaining to the The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at ?19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ^7,28,512/-per acre for Category B land. In jai. Sinail'scase {supra), I had assessed the fair market value . S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

1.

¶2Pooth khurd Holamhi Kalan

7.8. 2000 onnn ^4.75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B'

¶3/I IXCliCllI Bawana / .O.

7.8. ! •'.•J-f' •, • ^UUU 2000 ^4.75 ^14.75 for Category 'A' ^4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4• Khera Khurd

11.c M O O O - ^4.835 for .Category 'A' ?14.46413 for Category 'B' EA.App.No.999/2010& connectedm,atteji-s /'l! .5. Narela

2.5?.2001 j • fl6.165 , for Category 'A' ?15.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan 22, 8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.4381l' for Category 'B'

¶7Alipur

¶228.2001 ?16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd 2,2. 8.2001 i. ^

16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B' • 10. Sanoth

7.12.2001 ^ J n7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

12.. Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶14Alipur.

23.5.2002 ^8.655 -

¶15Sanoth

27.11.2003 n9.435 for Category 'A' n8.94:912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C .

¶16Rajapur Kalan

27.: L.2003 n9.435 for Category 'A! ?18.94912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

¶27In Jai Singh's case (su minimum land rates enhancec to time and found the same pra) I had also. analyzed by the Governnhent from time not to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.999/2010&cojmectedmatter; !| it Government officers and had found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions cif four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinoh Vs. UP! & Ml., 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram ChanderVs. UOI. ill (2004) 95 Hukum Sinoh Vs. um 7,nc\ an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005•Mahender Sinoh Vs. UP! & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on ,1993 to 1996 and in relation t GovernmentThad highlighte decision as under:- various dates between the years 0 the minimum price fixed by the d in paras 50 to 53 of the said "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the \/arious notifications issued from time to time by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts relevant to determine,the growth/rise in the prices of ii over the years commencing of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ch rose to ^10 lakhs per acre as ase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 agricultural land in Del from the year 1990. As ?4.65 lakhs per acre whi of 1.4.1997 i.e. the incre , iwiiviio UVCI / years which gives us a 115.054%increasein 7 years and l;hS average price increa rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years as of

1.4.2001. . It sh between the year 199C se would be 16.436%. The price r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e. ows that due to urbanization, and 1997 prices grows fairly . _i , pi yivjvvD laiii.y Sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the' Gairats case (supra), wf above. -

¶51I need to elaborate decision in Gairafs, ca: Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 a little more with respect to the

¶30Discussing evidence pertaining to fair markeit value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Court . discussed . t he valuation on basis of agriculturalyield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,00C/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus-capitalized the land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second surrounding areas inci method of land prices of comparable lands in the uding potentiality, in para onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoinir Godowns had come up g village Bhorgarh where FCI based on. sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to no,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered,theprices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 ijnd thus worked' out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/-per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights welj-factored in when ijiinimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as aga as of 1.4.1997 at no lal< highlighting that the pric that the potentiality had been Government issued on w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions inst the minimum price notified hs per acre, sale instances were a was ?10,03,364/-per acre. , 52. The decision in Ma. to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court w 'hender Sinah's, case, pertaining •ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential. agricultural land in Delhi had noted that notwit projecting la commercial and industrial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality :hstanding Master Plan so. . ,, ipcls, theoretically acquiring a potentiality,the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned,virtuallyno,developmenthad taken place in village Bawana and^ Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploitedthe potential. As I have already highlightedin para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth.and what the. market actually grows. The c ecisions in Gairaj's caise LA.App.No;999/20r0& connectedmatters r Mahender Singh's • case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990. and 1997 when prices rose by about

16.5% per annum thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momdntum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant fairly large area came, t to Master Plan for Delhi 199Q a :o be developed, both residential, commercial indus|trial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evic ence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds reilied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to reiy upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fancjiful sale deeds, to determinefair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by ,the learned Land IAcquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some referet|cesin village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the. fair market value of agricultural lands would be n9,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha. and 13 biswa of land which was sold for ^5,39,690/-and ^70,160/-was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2 (^5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were ice ^17,74,109/- per acre as of

0.5.2002. 28, In the absence of any cogentevidenceplaced on record by eitherpartiesotherthan the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time,. I hold that the Learned RefeienceCourt has rightly acloptedthe correctprincipleand has relied upon the correctevidenceand has given the correct appreciationsby suitablyincrejasingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date cf the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters fii,! ir ! • • Section 4 of tine Land Acquis further enhance the compe dismiss all appeals and cross land owners or the Union of I

¶291leave the parties to bea SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm ry ition Act and finding no scope to ihsation or to reduce the same I objections, whether filed by the ndia. r their own cost.': I' ..rv<i.s=i.j^s_c (PRADEEP NAIMDRAJOG) JUDGE LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatte::rs

-o $-36 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 89/2011 % TEK RAM Through: None. Appellant versus UNION OF INDIA &ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG