Chander Mohan v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. 1l

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm f) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V ludqment Reserved On: 19^^^ August 2011 % ludament Dri vered On: 19^^ September ?m i + LA.APP. CM No.6549/2 999/2010 & Oil (Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH Through: Mr.B.S. Mr.Deef: ; Mr.H.S. ' UOI& ANOTHER ^ ... Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate & Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, |Vir.SiddharthPanda and Ms.K Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-l AND Appellant Mann, Advocate - ak Khosia, Advocate and Negi, Advocate. Is. + LA.APP. 961/2010, . No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100 LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA. 1036/2010 & CM No.12865/ LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM 7/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, APP. 1010/2010, LA.APP Oil, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP. 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM LA.APP. 41/2011,JAAPP. 89/201T. LA.APT^ 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011, 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/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 & Award No, 06/2002-2003,Village-BhalswajahangirPuri) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. AI\ D LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatte'rs .APP. 161/201^^^^:!"^ LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP.

3.47/2011, LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. jfDiii + 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. LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No. 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. LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. /2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, 8/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, i5182/2011, 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 Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whether the Reporters of to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporte

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ' 'Sec. dated

30.07.1998 & iage-Bhalswa jahangir Puri) local papers may be allowed r or not? PRADEEP IMANDRAIOG. L

¶1I proceed with an apolog notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir learned counsel for arguments with respect to the required price to be suitably 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 BhalswaJahangir Puri was acquired pursuant / to the reader by referring to a Doint of time then to a t of time; but the reason is that land owners had addressed notification issued later and had LA.App.No.999/2010& comected mat!ers Page 2 of22 to a notification dated

15.09 2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, for a public purpose, namely, '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 Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigh lal<hs per acre i.e. fair market at^l3.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land a, which is equivalent to ^13.82 i/alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed issessment 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/2008 titled /?a/5//7a/7 l/s. Union of India, assessed the fair 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 ss the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price fbr agricultural land.fixed by the Government as on 01.04.2000, notified vide Circular dated

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

01.04.2000 till the date notif Land Acquisition Act was is .learned Reference Court gra cation under Section of the sued on

15.09.2000, but nted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the price ^13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No!999/2010'& connectedmat ers Page s of 22

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

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of by a declaration under Section 1998. After following the due Collector announced an award Jj Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

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

¶6Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land alue of the acquired land at equivalent to ?11.20 lakhs per ssessment made by Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.11 1A/2008 titled Chandrawati Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^11,46,670/- per acre. The difference ; in 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 m @ 11% per annum for well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat;ers , Court by way of the appeals above.

8.. On behalf of .l£ compensation, reliance wa documentary evidence:-

(a) The rate notified b^ the L&DO vide ^notification dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by and cross objections mentioned nd owners, justifying higher s placed on -the following 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 residential land in Azadpur, which, is stated to be close to village Bhalaswa Jahangir Purl, was fixed eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted at.?5830/- per square rr acre it was urgec 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. 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 Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be material good evidence. Relying on these LAApp.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 5 of22 documents, learned co argued that rate unsel for land owners stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, " 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 Mands, fair market value would conhe 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 Rohini Residential Scher would evidence that fai land comes to ^17,19,85 on the brochure, of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav for land OiWners also auction record of plots in ne in the year 1997-98 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 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 Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ^23.72 according to, learned col lakh to ?28.4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of ^4,36,36,363 per acr^ and counsel urged, that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land,

(d) Relying on a sale.deed of village Khera Khurd under land measuring 2-19 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes (Exhibit PW-15/1), where bigha was sold @ ^3 learned counsel urged th to ?56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat:ers I . i contended that this sale after making a reas deed should be relied upon, enable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another-ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in Mamurpur was sold to R upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w be sold on 05.08,1996 ( revenue estate of village ladha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which .was Khushi Ram in-favour of a hereunder land was agreed to ?18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of r village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence ,o the said village as of the , i.e. 5.8.1996.

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^pddar 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 the price as on the date of the Ties to ?1,94,782 per bigha, and price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the is to be given-on said value, notification under Section 4 co thus it was argued that since, in the same village, it would adjoining village or to adopt i;he price of developed land for LA.App.NG.999/2010& connectedmatters l! if fixing the marl<et value of undeveloped agricultural land having a'vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the fair market value of the land at a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference Court.

¶10It may,be noted that when judgment was reserved in the above captioned matters on 19^^ August, 2011, decision had been reserved for, judgment in a batch of land acquisition appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.266/2008titled JaiSinah Vs. (JO!.& Ann in which sirnilar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response counsel for the land owners advanced on earlier oc response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the depositionof Shri TrilokChand [HalqaPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoh to arguments of learned the arguments, which he had lasion may be treated as his 1/5 Union of India in which he h area while proving the Al<s Si. jahangir Puri. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated, in as explained the topology of the ra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa. rould reveal that village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burariare situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadli and Haiderpurare situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of. village Jahangir Puri. . LA.App.No.999/2010 & comiectedmatters Pages of22

¶12I may additionally not^ that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory | of Delhi, published by Government of NCT Delhi would, reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on th s eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NationalHighway No.l.. VillagesBadli, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorour (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangirPuri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenues estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in •potential price increased due the area was of a kind where to. urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah l/s. Union nf />Z^1998

(V) AD (Delhi) 45i, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c

¶76It has to be remembered it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the .^area which had f emergency i.e. the year 1975-that the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement ofslum and J.J.Clusters.

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

0.266/2008 lai Sinah l/s. (JO! &

12.8.2011 had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, whcin instant appeals were reserved for judgment,has since been pronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 and. 1. would highlight 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.999/2010 & connectedmatters Page 9 of22 • I ! constituted a 'V at the point of intersection wliere G.T.Karnai .Road i.e. NH-1 and Rolitak common point,, proceeding 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. for the land owners had re

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/ Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be highliglitedtliatvillageBlialswaJahangir Purl is outside the 'V aforesEid and as explainedhereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1.

¶15In the.appeals relatingto the said 10 villageswhere land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notificationsissued in the year In those cases, learned counsel lied upon the sale deed dated 1) 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 sub-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgmentdated 23.8.2011,I have discardedthese two sale deeds for the reasons recorded In paragraphs21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh agricultural. lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale is predicated on khe 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ....ch is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair mcirket value for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ?63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale ,deeds as reliable evidence to. determine fair, market value of 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 I t • C ^ VV ! I I IC deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the 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& connectedmattfirs been held not to be reli fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated pay the price for, the sal only plot of the requ reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization" as per ister Annie, the secretary of :hat the organization had to J piece of land as it was the site size suitable for requirement.ofthe organizationand is being used for destitute, women circumstance, personal t

¶22As held in, the dec see. 717 Land Acaiji<=;iti .e. there was 0 the vendee. a special sions reported as 1995 (1) on Officer Eluru & Or^ i/? Isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Qffirpr ansactions evidenced in a liered in evidence by virtue A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated aS: an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyertopay a higherprice. The true test is the price wh ich a well inforrriedwilling would pay to an eiqually well informed seller need by any special y to buy a particular pie'ce yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all (Refer para 13) sale tr sale deed which are ten of Section 51A of the L without being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bL studied the'market available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area anc buyer has a fancy for a the prevailing prices. If a ^articular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index offair market value ofthe lands in the area. Iwould be failing if Ido not highlightthat the dsecl dated 20 5.2002, which was accepted by the learned O? 1'"onn? pertainingto the notificationdated

27.1.2003 where-underagriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan.was sold agriculturist fora much ki per , acre as against th T63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre for Ex.PV by an agriculturist to an isser price i.e. n7,74,109/- price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 V-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmattexs i Ex.PW-l/2 Ex.PW-] intrinsic evidence of the destroy each otiier. ./3, themselves are having ^ fanciful price and ex-facie

¶23. Tinus, apart from t ne reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc market value of subjec bove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair : 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 ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result I would be failing not to ecision cited by learned Deing decision dated reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya matter being' LA.App.N (since, deceased) thru /

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead rvT^-h-h^i-I a a r « ' ' ' o.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh Rs Vs. (JO! & Ors. 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 which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a Ijancy for the said land ahd hence the 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 d eduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the { r^lir-h ... * Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th ie instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-l/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair marketvalue. The argumentignoresthe reasoning •3Q ^ l^ivisionBench in paras 37 to \A/h^^POin t^ fc-k n 1_ it t 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed or of the market value, bi therein was reduced by Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative It found that if the price 1/3''^ the price arrived at would be the same as woijlcl be price arrivedat with referenceto the averagte rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattelrs .liiril-produced by the Govern ^1,3.7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ment 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 was near about the price of ?2,15,1.60/- per bigha, froni the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 1993 a Section

¶4of the Land appreciation for given. I would highligl" hereinbefore already, contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and th destructive evidence of 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.

¶17As regards the agreementto sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situatedin village.BhalswajahangirPuri has been agreed to be transferredfor a sum.of ^8 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 ?15,70,000/-; f 1/3'^. would be deducted ),600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995

16.li.l995 Court determinedfair market|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 sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, years had required to be t once again, that I have noted inherent s itself is intrinsic mutually the 2 sale deeds reflecting r the own showing of the land acre as on 0i;07.200:3, it is

¶18Now, if the price, as pe owners was ?15,70,000/- per LA.App.No.999/2010&• connectedmatte-rs li' I-r 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 ?18 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 of its decision, the• learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op special considerations n have held the same not to be market value of .a large part paid by a buyer smitten with ned that the sai^d price was for lot the price settled between an informed willing buyer and an informed willing seller and without being influenced by special needs jDertaining to a particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed,

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where an abnormally high p issue in my decision dated 008 iai 5inah ]/s; UP! & 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 m^s hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision; I reite "ate the same.

¶20As regards.,auction rates of developed plot, of land situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen land owners concur wit Transport Nagar, 1 do not find ts of the learned counsel for the h the decision of the learned ReferenceCourtcontainedin paragraphs29 and 30 which are premisedoh the decisionof th s SupremeCourtreportedas La! LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters. € I A % Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769, Similar is the reasoning pertaining to tine e \/idence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.

¶21In my decision dated lai Sinah l/s. UP! & Ore;.. [ h

3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 d extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands 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 lai Sinoil's case are, extracted hereunder:- •

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted lard sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme 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 ResidentialS:heme, the subject lands had acquired a building • pc would be what would tentiality, but question be the value to which building potentiality would translate itself.

¶311hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the SupremeCourt in Lai Chands,case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence is reliable. On the issue of potentiality,relating itself to the value, I promise the decision, to deal with the same while 1 shall be discussing as to what should .be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters '^1;

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chancts case (supra) the I • Supreme Court held that sucli raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate wherefrorn 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 Nagarand 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 transferred by.the perpetual hsssee, suffice would it be to state that the same relatesto developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in Lai Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed discarded with reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I n NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village . Bhalswa jahangir Purl would reveal that the two' vil and Burari are separated by t towards Mubarka Chowk frc colony adjoining the famous where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhancedwith referenceto L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topologyof th(i area and as per the testimony of Trilok.Chand (Halka Patwari) 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 Purl he outer ring road as we travel m the. Tibetan Re-settlement 3urudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters .5) 4]>. thus the fair market value of two villages would be comparable.

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

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land, Acquisition Act, I record i.e. evidence ir 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 the material on my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA./.ppeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008titled Raibal & Ors. Vs. Union of India ^ 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 ?9,28,464.65per acre for Category:Cland pertainingto the The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at 3ory A land and ^7,28,512/- per lai Singh's [supra), 1 had Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60 notification dated

24.7.1998. notification dated

18.07.2003 ^19,20,568/- per acre for Gate acre for Category B land. Ir assessed the fair marketvalue ofland in 10 villagesas under:- . S.No. . Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

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

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 - J -/ n4.75

¶3Bawana .

7.8. 2000 •n4.75 for Category 'A' ,n4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd .11.c .2000 ^ j — •^4.835 for .Category 'A' .^4,46413 for Category 'B' EA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters i'B .5. Narela

2.5 .2001 n6.165 . for Category 'A' n5.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan

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

¶7, Alipur

¶228.2001 ^6.745 for Category 'A' ne.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 ^

16.745 for Category'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 ^6.745 for Category 'A' •?16.43811 for Category 'B' -10. Sanoth

7.112.2001 ?17.295

¶11• Shah pur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655 .

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ^18.655

¶14Alipur.

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶27i

1.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' n8.94:912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

16.; Rajapur Ka ah •27.1 L.2003 a9.435 for Category 'A' ns.94912 for Category 'B' T18.47539 for ' Category 'C

27.' In /ai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhancec to time, and found the same by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojmected matters -3, 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 Delhi 13 Gairai Sinoh I/5. UOI Court reported as 2006 IV AC MH, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOL ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinph \/s, UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005•Mahender Sinoh l/^. UO! & Qrs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence various dates between the years 0 the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to. 53 of the said decision as under:-

¶50The aforesaid udgments noted in' the preceding land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t paragraphs as also the time to time by the Go various notifications issued from ^ernment of NOT 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 Del from the year 1990. As ?4.65 lakhs per acre whi ii over the years commencing 3f 27.4.1990 minimum price was ofi/iiQQ7-rose to no lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 I.e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 jjearswhich gives us a.lil5.054%increasein 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The orice r'lca rwfrst-i-Kz-N n .-.L iL ^ ^ . . r rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of. 1.4.2001.. It sh;ows that, due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corrol^orativeevidence for this would be the decision of the Gajrafs case (supra), -wf above.

¶51r need to elaborate decision in Gairafs ca pertaining to fair marke . village Holambi Kalan as LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatte Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 a little more with; respect to the 5e. Discussing " the evidence t value of agricultural land in of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 rs rrfii, ••.m-The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as age as of 1.4.1997 at flO lak highlighting that the pric Court discussed valuation oh basis of agriculturalyieldand found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,00C/- for multiple cropped land and haying good irrigation facilities and thus; capitalized the land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FGl Godowns had come up 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 theh considered,the prices notified by the Governmentas 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 ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. that the potentiiality 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, saleMnstances were e was ^10,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in MahenderSinoh'^ case, pertaining to. village Bawana,. refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for -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 wjhich was projecting residential, cornrriercial and indu!strial future exploitation of agriculturalland in Delhijand on the issue,of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and - the iahds theoretically acquiring a potentiality,the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the yea.r 1996 i.e. the date 4-U i.! ^ ! I. ». I • i . • ... 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 expected to be the mark actually grows. The c As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the. market 'ecisions in Gaira/'s case LA.App;No;999/2010 & connected matters I . se highlight that potentiality reality between 1990 and 1997 about

16.5% per annum d potentiality did not translate ntum and the acceleration fell to Mahender Sinah's • ca translated itself into a when prices rose by thereafter extende with the requisite mome 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 industrial 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 resiled upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras relying upon, being fane irned Reference Court has given upon and for which I have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not :iful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with 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 which was sold for /- was paid as stamp duty would (55,39,690/-,+ ^70,160/-) were rice ?17,74,109/- per acre as of !0.5.2002. ^5,39,690/- and ?70,160/ mean that ^6,09,850/- spent would yield the p the date of the sale I.e. 2

¶28In the absence of any cogentevidenceplaced on record by eitherpartiesotherthan the minimum price notifiedby the Government from time to time, I hold that the Learned ReferenceCourt has rightly aeloptedthe correctprincipleand has relied upon the correctevidenceand has given the correct appreciationsby suitablyincrejasingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between ijhe dates when rninimum prices were notified and, the date cif the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to furtiier enhance the compensationor to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and crosj; objections,whetherfiled by the land owners or.the Union of India.

¶29I leave the parties to bear their own cost. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm . LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatte:xs d (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-41 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 161/2011 CHANDER MOHAN 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