Ajit Singh v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. <Sl£ (1 ^

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm /fT' ''i; j. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludament Rp^-prw^HOn: i0h August ?mi ludamentnpii\/pro(jQp-jgthSnntember.2011 % LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH -ru u " Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.iyiann,Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia,Advocate and . Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. Vs. UOI & ANOTHER Respondents -T-U l_ ^ "• »lUCULb Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate & Mr.Sa Nawani, Kaomud AN njay Kumar Pathal<, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1 b M 961/2010, LA.APP, 1001/2010 & CM 1007/2010 &CM No.15181/2011, LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010 LA.APp' 1036/2010&CM No.12865/2011,LA.APP. 5/'?oil LA APP' 6/2011 &CM No.6756/20il, LA.APP. sfeoil &S 41/2011, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/20li LA.APP. 161/2011, LA APP 246/201li 298/2011 163/2011 248/2011, 375/2011, 394/2011, 407/2011. LA.APP. ^ LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 386/2011 397/2011 LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 & Award No^ 06/2002-2003,Village-BhaiswaJahangirPurl) A^ D LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatte|rs Page 1 of22 + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011,. LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. •242/201 244/2011, 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.l 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 CM No.12871/2011, , LA.APP. 132/2011, 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP, LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP, 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. dated v30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village-BhalswaJafiangir Purl) ( CORAM: • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJQG

¶1Wlietherthe Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whetherthe judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

¶1I proceed with an apology to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in Doint of time then to a notification issued prior in point of time; but the reason is that learned counsel for the land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be suitabjly reduced pertaining to the notification which was issued earlier in point of time.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahanglr Puri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 2 of22 T h ifnii to a notification dated

15.09.2000 Issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, for a public purpose, nameiy, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration 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 Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, ir market value of the acquired land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to n3.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed at ?13.82-lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference. Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2'A/2008 titled Raj Sinah Vs. Union of India, assessed the f^ir market value 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 Acquisition Collector as well as the-Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the ^acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agriculturalland fixed by the Government as on •01.04.20C 0, notified vide Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing compensation, did not grant xippreciation for the period from

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was isjsued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days c§^ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000and the prize^13.82 lakhs per acre; LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat ers a

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in tine same revenue estate of village Bhaiswa Jaiiangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998, for the same pui: JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on

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

12.03.2001, whereby, he alue of the acquired land at equivalent to fll.20 lakhs per assessed fair market v ^2,33,333 per .bigha which is acre.

¶6Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land ssessment made by Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act The [.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.11 lA/2008 titled Chandrawati Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^11,46,670/- per. acre. The difference i in the destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the .the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated

25.7.1997 same reason as noted 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 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment rr @ 11% per annum for i/vell as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat:ers Page 4 of22 m Court by way of the appeals above.

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

(a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification and cross objections mentioned dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by libit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in "esidential commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residentialland irji Azadpur,which, is stated to be close to village Bhala|swaJahanglrPurl, 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 enhanced compensation in sum of ^1,17,96,200/- per acre.

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

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby. jviCD decided to allot developed plots to the transporters @ >425/- per square meter and Exhibit PW-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ^4,500/- per sqi

21.02.2005, whereby jVICD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be material good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 Sc connected mat ers ,fn?i documents, learned counsel for land owners argued that rate stated In the. resolutions aforenoted; which was Applicablefor the year 1976, would evidence that fai land comes to n7,19;85 on the brochure of DDA market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value would con^e to ?8.59,928/--per acre in the year 1976 and increiasingthe 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 for land owners also auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, it was" argued that as pe:" the advertisement auctions were held qua flats hav ng plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Purl at a price • ranging between ?23.72 according to. learned col lakh to T28.4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of n4,36,36,363 per acre counsel urged, that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land,

(d) Relying on a sale.deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ f3 learned counsel urged th 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. it was i^) LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat ers

¶9\ contended that this sale deed should be relied upon. after making a reas ohable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agrlcult Jahangir Purl. Another. (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swam! Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned .counsel for the land owners also relied iell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly',whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ns lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shrl village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o" the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay . appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2: in village Bhalswa Jahangir urai land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^oddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of ^1,40,000and urged that even if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given on said value, the price as on the date of the notificationunderSection4 coTiesto n,94,782'perbigiia,and tlius it was argued that since price of simiiarland is available in the same village, it would be Imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt i:he price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010Sc connectedmat ers ilIRt fixing marl<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.

10.. It 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 Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mati 2n judgment was reserved in the 19"^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition •App.No.266/2008 titled lai Sindh 1/5. UOI.&Anr. in which similar arguments as 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 occasion may be treated as his response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the depositionof Shh Trilol<Chand {HalqaPatwan) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC. No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs Union ofIndia in which he fas explainedthe topologyof the area while proving the Al<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1of village Bhalswa JahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated,in fhe North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situatedin the Eiast, villagesSamaipurBadii and West and villages Bharola and ' n the South of village Jahangir ers ID

12., I may additionally notfe that tine lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published by Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhaiswa Jahangir Purl is situated on ths eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NationalHighwayNo.l. VillagesBadii, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Allpur, MamoorDur (Narela) are on the western side of National HlghwayNo.l!

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangirPuri, post acquisitionof agriculturallands 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 Sinah l/s. Union nf .//7QVa,1998(V) AD (Delhi) A81, 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 were also for re-settlement of.

¶14The decision in LA.App.^ Ann which was reserved on that the two subject acquisitions ;lum and J.J.Clusters.

0.266/2008 lai Sinah Vs. UP!

12.8.2011 had yet to be pronouncedon 19.8.2011,when instant appeals were reserved for judgment,has since been pronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 I. would higl^light that while assessing the fair market value of the land -situated in ;.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-WestDelhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Bawana, I had noted t Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010Sc connectedmatters Page 9 of22 constituted a 'V at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. N'H-1 Rohtak common point,- proceeding time to time 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sa.bzi IMandi. It needs to be highlightedthat village BhalswaJahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesEiidand as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1.

¶15In the.appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from had dealt with notificationsissued in the year 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 the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sutj-para(d) of para 8hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasops recorded in paragraphs21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which 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 evidence to determine agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the per acre and the latter The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable fair market value of the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale purchased by a religiojs 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 knowledge the land was purchasedfor religiouspurposeand wafe being used for a religious purpose. The sale dedd Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters been held not to be reli fair market value of able evidence to.determine agricuiturai lands on reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated :hat the organization had to pay the pricefonthe saipl piece of land as it was the only .plot of the regu site size suitable for the requirement,of the organizationand is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in. the decisionsreported as 1995 (1) see. 717 Lahd Acquisition Officer Eluru & Qrs. 1/s-. jsti Roilini &Ann (Refer!para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 i\/!oiid. Raufuddin I/?. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale,deed which are tendered in evidenceby virtue of Section 51A of the LA.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market v reason there may which have led the buye of land. An informed bi studied the'market alue of land in an area for be special circumstances . . - to pay a higher price. The true test is the price wh ich a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any-special circumstancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpielce T* I T* r->/-J A .-I ! _ •! I_ ... ~ • 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 'ndex of fajr markjetvalue of the lands in the ' ' ' do not highlightthat the upon the sale deed dated ^accepted by the learned area. 1would be failing i Union of India had relied

20.5.2002, which was ReferenceCourt pertainingto the notificationdated

27.1.2003 where-underagriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesser price i.e. X\1 74 109/- per acre as against th " ' ' ^63.478 lakhs per acre e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatte'rs m 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 tie reasoning of the learned Reference Court; with which I concur, afore-noted bove would be additional sale deeds would , — ^evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason Ifind that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisitionis of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsicevidenceof the transactionbeing the result of a fancy of the buyer, I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.I.S.Dahiya j^elng the decision dated

19.12.,2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.Mo.193/2006 Pratap Sinoh [since, deceased) thru Ars Vs. IJO! Pre it was highlightedthat the sale deed,therein by which L&T had purchased8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory wliicli liad been ignored by tlie learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence th'e price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the reasons in para

¶21a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc parcel of land being la Court and thus even in't deeds in question i.e. should be treated as tf market value. The argur in the decision of the Div 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed on of the market value, bi therein was reduced by would be the same as wo •ge, was accepted by the ie instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair Tent ignores the reasoning ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative It found that if the price 1/3''', the price arrived at Lild be price arrived at with - --"r wiiivcu OL VVILII reference .to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the. Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ,irr' # produced by the Govern ^1;3;7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas iment were giving a price of sale deed under ed. the land gave the price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/-which wp near about the price of f2,15,1,60/- per bigha, if wouid be deducted from the sum of f3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 1993 a "Section of the Land ,600/-. it may further be said judgment the year of id notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995

16.11.1995 Court determined fair mar[<et\^alue 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 the sale deed in question as the basis for.if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. 1 would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted Inherent contradictionin the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and thi^ itselfis intrinsicmutually destructive evidenceof the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."

¶16For the reasons therein, I 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 Purl. i

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

01.07.2003whereunder4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at n5,70,000/-:

¶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.999/2010 & connected matters difficult to comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 abnormally high vaiue as per 1996 in which the stated price is fl8 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was TIB lakhs per acre and 7 to tl5.7 lakhs per acre! I ne years down the line the price fell ad to highlight that in paragraph of its decision, the • leiarned Reference Court, while examining Ex..PW-6/l has op ned that the said price was for .special considerations and nDt the price settled between an an informed willing seller special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. j issue in my decision dated informed willing buyer without being influenced by particular land, and had thus

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where an abnormally high p have held the same not to be market vaiue of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen 008 fai Sinah I/5. UOl & Anr. i.e. "ice 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 good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. 1reiterate the same.

¶20As regards auction rates of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, 1 do not find ts of the learned counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned .Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premisedoh the decisionof the SupremeCourt reportedas La! LA.App.No.999/2010-& connected matters Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the es/ldence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.

¶21In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 /ai Singh Vs. UOi & Qrs.. 1had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Ciiands case, with referenceto price at which ceveloped plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in iaiSingh's case are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela ResidentialScheme developed by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai render this evidence as the value of land in the s •30. It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same 3er which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which most unreliable to determine Jbject cases. as held even by the learned with development of - Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela ResidentialScheme, the subject lands had acquired a building pctentiality, but the question would be what would • - be the value to which building potentiality would translate itself.

¶31in view the observation and the findings of' the SupremeCourt in Lai Chands. case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence ^s reliable. On the issue of potentialityrelating itself to the value, 1promise the reader of the decision,tp deal with the same while 1 shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. 1hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters

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

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

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lea;;e-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to deveiloped plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed discarded with reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I n 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-measurihgi758.01 bigha and 929.05 blgha.

¶25From the topologyof the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village Bhalswa jahangir Purl would reveal that the two vil ) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC village Burari is on the east of 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 lurudwara iviajnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters '11 thus the fair market value of land on a particular date In the . two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessing the fair 'in village Burari, which was e dated

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, notification dated

24.7.1998. 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 L.A. Appea) No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land at ?11,60 d assessed the fair market value ,580.82 per acre for Category A land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464.65per acre for Category C land pertaining to the The land acquired pursuant to notification dated 18.07.200^ had been assessed by me at ?19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ?17,28,512/-per acre for Category B land. In la! Sinah'scase [supra), I had S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair mari<et value (in ia[<hs per acre)

1., Pooth Khurd

7.8 2000 n4.75 for Category 'A' n4.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Holambl Kaian

7.8. 2000 n4.75 3, Bawana

7.8. 2000 T14.75 for Category 'A' n4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Kliera Khurd 11 c o o o f\I ^14.835 for .Category 'A' fl4.46413 for Category/B' EA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters rv- /U' » .5. Narela

2.5 t—I o O" (N ^6.165 , for Category 'A' n5-.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan 22 8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

7.. Alipur

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 ?

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

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 ^16.745 for Category .'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B' •10. Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶14Alipur

23.3.2002 ^18.655

¶15Sanoth

¶271.2003 n9.435 for Category 'A' ns.94912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Kalan

¶27L.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' ns.94912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C /•g/ Singh's case (supra) 1 had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Governmentfrom time to time,and found the same not to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No,999/2010& co^inectedmatters m €) m Government officers and had found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Ga/ra/ Sinah Vs. UP! & Ml., 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah Vs. UO! and an unrepo.rted decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 l/lahender Sinah Vs. UO! & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence iand price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t various dates between the years :o the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in" the preceding paragraphsas also the ^arious notificationsissued 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 agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencinq from the year 1990. As ^4.65 lakhs per acre whi of 1.4.1997 i.e. the incre of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ch rose to nO lakhs per acre as ase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a ljl5.054%increasein 7 years and th^ averageprice increasewould be 16.436%. The price ir is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e. 13WS that due to urbanization, , , ' and 1997 prices grows fairly snarply and good corroborative evidence for this would the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in G^jrals case (supra), which l have discussed in para 49 above. rise over the .next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years as of. 1.4.2001. . it, sh between the year 1990

¶51i need to elaborate decision in Gairafs ca a little more with respect to the se. Discussing . the evidence pertaining to fair markeit value of agricultural.land in village Holambi Kaian as of 15.11.1996, in paras'9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ,;Q!: the_ Court discussed tihe valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ^9.5 iakhs method of surrounding 7V1 per acre. Discussing the second prices of comparable lands in the areas. inci uding potentiality, in para onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCl Godowns had come u|3 and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to ^10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered',the prices notified by the Government as per policy dated

1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/-per acre for Category 'A' lands and f9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as aga 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 as of 1.4.1997 at nO lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlightingthat the price was n0,03,364/- per acre

¶52^The decision in Mo'henderSinoh'^ pertaining -ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, cornrrierclal and Industrial future exploitation of agriculturalland in Delhijand on the Issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and - the lands 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 to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for of the notification with concerned, virtually no-c which Division Bench was evelopment had taken place In village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential, para 49 above there is As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the. market actually grows. The c ecisions in Gairaj's case LA.App.No;999/2010& connectedmatters r •Tn, ' Mahender Sinah's • case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 . and 1997 when prices rose by about

16.5% per annum thereafter extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial indusjtrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evic e'nce in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely irned Reference Court has given , upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have v\/ith us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in 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 f5,39,690/- and f70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ?6,09,850/- {^5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price n7,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶28in the absence of any cogent evidenceplaced on record by eitherpartiesotherthan tfe minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that the Learned ReferenceCourt has rightly adopted the correct principleand has relied upon the correctevidenceand has given the correct appreciationsby suitablyincreasingthe 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& connectedmatters Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to furtiner enhance the compensation or to reduce the same i dismiss aii appeals and cross objections,whetherfiied by the land owners or the Union of India. ^

¶29I leave the parties to bear their own cost; —I—- SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattis (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-40 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 160/2011 AJIT SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG