UOI v. Pratap Singh

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of I > India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb JNIL GAUR) JUDGE %

1.11E H1GH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November IS, 2011 Pronounced on: Janiiarv 06, 2012 • (GRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHA[^MA • Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA'erffla, MrJitm Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Toraar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas,' Ad'vocate. iMr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Megi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate N4r.S.K.Roiit and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.PankaJ Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav. Mr.Deepalc Khoski, Mr.Samit Khosla and Nlr.Dhananjay N4ehlawat,"Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.AtuI Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for •respondent in appeals filed by UOI) • versus • • . ~ UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents' Through; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior A.d\'ocate with Mr.Saajay Pathak, Mr.Mohifrao. Jadha'v'and M's.Navlin Swain. Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran. Advocates fo.r L/\C/UOI Mr.AJay Verma, Ms.Becnashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr S.K.Seihi, Mr.Pav^an Mathur, Mr.Kunal Shanria, Advocaie for DDA !,a.AFP.4 12/2008 & CM.No,4096/200S ('Cross-Objections), f.A.APP.;452/2008;' •].A.APP.4fi3/2008; LA.API\688/2008 .-fe C?.4.Mo.5990/20]0 (Cross-Objeclions); i.A.APJ\697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections).;LA.APP.70i/20C8-&' • CM.No.5] 0/2009 (Cross-Objections): L\.APP//68/200R; LA.APP.77()/200B; lA.Ali-p.hio. Iiy.'3/r;0nji & connccted Appoals of Villngi:Bharihyl !A.Aop.No,& coiiimc'.edAppoalsoivill.ni^cGijwiiijn 1A.App. & connc-acd Appeaii o' Viilaiji:rochanpiir Page! I of 29 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835./2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP,798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM'.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008 l.,A.APP.l047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM'.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008 LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-:Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008 LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.No.752/201l' (Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.,1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections);, LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.-623/2009(Cross-Objections);:

1...A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1093/2008;'A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA;APP.l108/2008 &, CM.No;3839/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1109/2008;LA.APP.l110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.l111/2008;LA.APP.l112/2008 &• CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 ((.-.ross-Objections);LA.APP.l115/20()8; LA;APP.l116/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008; lA.APP.n26/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); •LA.APP.l 130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.No..566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP.,1135./200S& CFvl'.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l137/2008& CM.No.l7283/2008\:Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l140/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008;LA.APP.1157/2008;LA.APP.l158/2008& CM.No;7774./2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l16172008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/20Q9(Cross-Objections): LA.APP.l 168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.11"72/2008;LA.APP.-l173/2008; LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933,/2009(Cross-Objections); l.A.APP.l184/2008; LA.APP.l1S5./2008; LA.APP.il86/2008&CM..No.7013/2009 I.A.App. No. .'i 19.'j/?008a connocled Appealsof VillaReBharthal, KA App. No; Zf)i/20.10 £( connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan l7\.App.No. ;L.U/;i010& connnclnclAppealsofVlllagGPochanDur' % (Ci-oss-Objcctions); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008;^ LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; ' LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & ' CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & LA.APP. 108/2009; LAAEBOimO .A.APP.136/2009;(^.APP.137/2009 LA.APP.140/2009; rA.APP. 143/2009; [A. APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP; 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.224./2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; ].A.APP.367,/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; [.A.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.5n/2009;

1.A.APP. 572/2009; l.A.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA. APP.466/2009: LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.13/2011: .No.953/2011 A. APP. 121/2009 LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA;APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.295/2009; LA.AP?.447.''2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009:. LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008; l,A.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 13 5/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CiM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.3 05/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 L A.APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506,/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA. APP. 1176/2008 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal,-Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 l.A.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). • DEVENDER KUMAR Through: Appellant .Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh lA.App. i\io ia9:;/;'.008 & connectoci Appeals of Village Bharlhal lA.App.No.294/2010 & connccUid Appnaisof Village Bijwasan lA.App No. 1.1.1/2010& connccfcid Appeals of Village Pochanpu.' Page 3 ofZ9 o Advocates Mr.S.K.SoIanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.A.PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. [.A..APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010

56./2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadha^•^ and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for Udl/LAC Mr.S.K.SoIanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by IJOI, Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, '71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and.Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221./20J0 LA.APP, 246/2010 LA.APP, 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP,

296./2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 35L'2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP.352/20iq LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA..APP. 362/2010 LA.y\PP. 407/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 lA.AFP.

725./2010 LA.APP. 73L/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 •LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 C.M.No.964/2011 (Cross-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .LA.APP. & 51/2010 55,'20]0 70/2010 226/2010' 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/201.0 722,''2010 726/2010

732./2010 828/2010 • (Relatingto NotificationNo. F. L0(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13:12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Laud AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,•Village Bijwasan,Delhi) LA.App. No ll'J.'j/'2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal L^.App. No. 29'!//01()& connocleriAppealsofVillageBijwasan iA.App, iMo. l.lj/'-OlO & connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 JA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 5,9, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61,64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant hi R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA c& ANR Through: Respondents l\4r.SanJay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain. Advocates for LIOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP, I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.' LA.APP. LA./VPP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.

1.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 ,'395/2010 420/2010. 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' LA.APP LA.APP • LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 154/2010 . 165/2010 . 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 • 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 .1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 . 155/2010 . 209/2010 .249/2010 .261/2010 . 305/2010 . 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 , 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APP. L^V.APP. LA..A.PP. LA.APP. LA.A.PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 156/2010 , 215/2010 .250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434,/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429,/2011

5.22,/2011 53572011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, , LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA:APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A,App. No, 1195/2008& conncclQdAppealsofVillageBharthal l7\,App.No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App No 111/2010& conneclfidAppealsofVillagePochanpur. Pa,5e 5 of 29 . (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ,

06.01.2012 .

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by, the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentoflearned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing ot these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoUficationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/IA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating • - to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of tlie Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. •3. Agriculturalland of the appellajitsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, • i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward , No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@ ?13.82 lacs per acre for l^lock A (level field -- with top soil) and ^12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired l-A.App. No. 119!)/2008& connectedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal. LA.App. Mo. & connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. n.1/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ."age6of29 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of • the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ^15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive 'Engineer, Karnataka Homing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Ann,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs\ State ofHaryana and Ann,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002'(62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DIU 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of 'Haryana & • Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab Ors., 2011 '(9) SCALl'i 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer d Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC' 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibkai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, l.A.App.No, .l.l9.')/?008 & connoctnd Appeals of Village!Sharthai ' . lA.App, IMo. 7.9'(/?.010&-connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan i'A.App. No 1.31/20.10& connected Appealsof VillagePochanpur ' • ' • Page7 of29 'Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC US', RisalSingh & Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 169\ Genera!Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyanimalandAnr SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC'^2937;Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors ra. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423'; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union of India, decided oh

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and. BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for die appellants that the locationand situationol the acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over a period of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S/romar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line, of'Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railway Une is the IGI Airport,New Delhi i7\.App.No. 11;JS/20G3& coiinfictcd.AppealsofVillageISharihal IA.App. No. 2<M/2.010&conncctodAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. 11.1/20.1.0Si connectodAppealsofVillagePochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Aiiport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned counsel tbr the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquired for the extension oi IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-! and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka. Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizrashivi.^to highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur.and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land-in the light of.its location and has illegally treated the acquired'land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"' October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entireland of VillageBharthal had ceasedto berural in view ofthe Notificationof 24'" October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been-wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.App, No. & connocted'AppealsofVillageBharthal . • , LA App.,No.294/P.OlO& connGclficAppnalsofVillafjG Bijwasan • • LA.App. No. 1.1.1/;!010&connectedAppealsof VjllagePochanpur • • Pagc9of23 Reddi&Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been.consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Bass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiodoftime and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appollanlsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there IS no basis to concludethai these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settledlegal proposition laid down by the Apex CourtmAnjaniMolu Dessaivs. StateofGot, «ndAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710,the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice ofthe land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, therefore,'relianceplaced by the ,ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circleratesfor detenriiningthe maiketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. 1!. Assessmentofmarketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by •Mr.R.Godara, learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates hxed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-deteimmed rates hxed by the Governmentfor'allotmentof alternate plots in the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,sitiiationand potentialityof tite acquired land, determinationof its market value is lAApp. No n9V2008& cnnnoctedAppealsOfVillageBharlhal ' ' LA.App. No. 2J4/70.1.0&connct;tcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App No. 1.1J/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-Impulse'IndiaPrivateLimited of,LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailed'the impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) ''Ignores the aokn.owledgem.enton the part of the respondent about the AM'ard No.26/2002-2003 dated ^

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006.. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) b) Does not account for the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates, of land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, Sangunthala versus Tahsildar. 2010(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other.factors which as per established law has to be considered beforeascertaining the value ofthe land under.acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the .Sale Deeds • produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakirci Patil versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deed showinghigher rate shoidd not he disregarded in ' IA.A|ip. No. .11!3'V2008Si connected Appealsof VillageUharthal I.A.App. No, 294/20.10& connocledAppealsofVillageDijwasan IA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ... Pagellof29 case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also 'held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales .transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the. market value of the land, is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and 13,36,000 in Block B in violation •of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) ' SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •re.jused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of.Delhi State., . The masterplan and NotifLcations of Government for land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential commercial , and. other' permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"^ amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by • virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was . amended and the area Vv'here the land is situated, was ' • deem.ed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there.. No Panchay.at elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir .Singh and Anr' vi-. Union of India and refused to consider thefact that the development in the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser would pay for. the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. ..2'• had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connccted Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No, 291/?.C)10& connected Appeals of VillageBijWd.san ' • L/^.App. No,111/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur Pagel2ofZ9 (0 <>< auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the -pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 -for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use of the land althoughthe land was acquiredfor development purposes of l^warka. Phase

¶11It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although .they clearly establish the commercial potentiality ofthesaid land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was held,thatthepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact' whetherthe land hasgot buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in nearfuture needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being, occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up. residential quarters. As a portion oj the land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantspf this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchof appeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effect of l7\.App. Mo. ,1195/2008& connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appealsof VillagG Bijwasan l7\.App-.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • • • Page 13 of29 urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MakeshDattatray Thirihkarvs. State •of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-Dcterniined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Ihus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas perSection51'-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a eertified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence for determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fency of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to"be considered and the sale instancesrelied upon by the Respondentsdisclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the ReferenceCourt and whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpa'i & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand ms-. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled, as Sushil Kumar w. Union, ofIndia, decided on 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App No. 11915/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBhart.hal • - ' ' l-A.App. No.7.94/2010& connected Appeals of VillafjeBiiwasan l7\.App.No. .1I1/2010& connectedAppealsofVlllaBO Pochanpur ' Page14 of29 .0- -and the purchaseras. no prudentperson having Icnowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.^Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DetermmedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis Courtin SmhilKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra). .

¶16So fai as potentialityof the land is concerned,if was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the • minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has. been erroneously dctermmcd by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor ftirtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired •lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement,by the RcfercnccCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. •• •

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the Sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon record and the decisionscited,what emergesis thatthe truemarketvalue of the comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling I.A.App. No. ivy^nom &connocteclAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageIJijwasan lA.App. iMo. ll:l/2Cao&connectedAppealsof VillagePoctianpur # seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words;- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kindof importanceor because of its explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityof the acquiredlandfor puttingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) •possibility^ofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants ofbuildings to beput up on that land; ,

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquired landfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or closeproximity ofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands around the acquired,land or the acquired land itself being in dem.and for building purposes, to specify a few. "

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for 1A.App. No. 11.9.'3/?.008& connecledAppealsofVillageBharthal ^ LA.App. No ?..')4/2010& connocied Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Av'mash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for deteimination of compensationfor acquiredlands,it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of small pieces-of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 1,'^^

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behall of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value.of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Stipra) can be referred to with advantage. ' 21;; Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App. No. 11G5/200S & connocted Appeals of VillageBharthal IA.App. No. 21M/?010a con.ncctHdAppeals of VillageBijwasan LA.App. (Mo. 1.1.1/MlO& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur " Page 17of29 "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, Mnll be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to.. "

¶22It \yoLild be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations ^ pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made by the •Apex, Court in Chindha Faklm Pati! (Supra), which are as . foliows:- "// is well settled that' genuine .and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in .the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. " •

¶23Principles to determinethe market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for development in the a.rea, a.nd the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect oj development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and grad.ual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. IA.App. No.119!.V-008& connccted Appeals of village Bhartlial ' ' i.A.App. No. ?.94/2.010& connected Appeals of Village liljwasan LA.App. No. a.]1/2'O.iaa connectedAppealsofVillagePochar,pur Page 18 of29 & On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to-rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of. any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 1-5%per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%oper annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific' evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to he applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value byproviding appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), Vy'here there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the_ rdied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour to-five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates-to a.,, neighbouring land. What may be a reliable siandard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired' in 1992,. adopting the annual increase method M'ith reference to a sale or l.A.App. Mo. 11.95/200!?& connnclGdAppoalsofVillageBh'artha! • ' • lA.Apo. IMo. 7.91/2010 & connncted Appeals of Village Eljwa.san IVv.Apo No, .m/2010 & conneciodAppealsofVillagePochanp'jr , ' Page 19of29 2^ % acquisition in 1970 or 1980may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the . likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease. "

¶24This Court-is mind&lofthe dictumofthe Apex CourtinHaryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- r • " "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different sitiiationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming of a residential layout courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided • and a imiform.rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is.of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Fochanpar at a price which varied from ^52 lacs to?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (l^x.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang Beas in respectofthe compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswas situatedin VillagePochanpurrel^ectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis,the moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds-LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l-A.App. No. 2.9'V20.10& conncctnd Appealsof VillageBijwasan . ... LA.App. No. 1:1.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page20of29 m f (Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-1/10)indicate,thatits price varies from ^52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-l/iO)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to . each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants,tiad the purchiaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him^as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.^e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on'23.8.2011•and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands. 27, In the instant matters, though the land use of the' acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their. ^acquisition,Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent,person having knowledge of prevailing I.A.App. No.1.195/2008& connpctGdAppeals of Village Bharthal IJ\.App.No. 2y'',/2010& connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan l.A.App. No. 11.1/2010& connerledAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 21 of29 market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (]ix.PW-l/4 to lix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale.Deed of27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (J^x.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such ,a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular,rates for the developed lands and Prc-Dctermined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to' be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P, Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- . "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality M-'ith reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood IA..'\pp. Mo. :ilf):>/2008 & Mnner.lKd. Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.App. No. 29';/;i01,0 & connected Appeals of Village:Biiwasan I.A.App. No..U1/2010 & connectfid Appeals of Village Pochanpiir or M'hetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land with buildingpotentiality with reference tp thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts,• ' reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliminary notificationunder Section 4(1) oj the Act. Further,yvhere no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be 'done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidence'to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidenceof sales oj buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA alteracquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands: Following the dictum of Lai Chand(Supra), a coordinateBench ofthis Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No.,n.<j:i/2008& connected Appealsof Village Bhartiial LA,App. No. 291/^010& conncctcdAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur' Page23of29 m the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Refertoce Court has rightly not adoptedthe DDArates for allotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalue of the acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalation at the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period .intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the ' acquired land'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a 'neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis of sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate' l7\,App. Mo. .n9:j/2008 & connoctod Appeals of VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 7.91/2010& connected Appealsof Village Bljwasan LA.App. No. Ul/2010 & connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 24of29 t escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwan-anted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SmhU Kumar (Supra), 1 fmd that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushi! Kumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @ 12% pQT annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value ofthe acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%o per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'' April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be_furtherincreasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be. urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year-1994the land use ol the acquiredland.hadchangcdbut that by itselfis not sufficientto IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connectfidAppenisof Village.Bharthni iy\.App.No. i(.M/2010&, connGctndAppealsolVillage Bijwasan I.A.APP. No. ]llp.QlO&conneclRdAppealsof VillagePochanpur • ' pagg 25 of 29 3:^ /i.. . presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse; Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area' mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance ol Viilage Samallcha (iix.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in viev/ oJ: the afore-referreddictum of'the Apex Couit in Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation (HSJDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum piice fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturallandin Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what l-A.App. No. 119S/2008&connc;cl[!dAppealsnf Village^Bharthal LA.App. l\Jo. 2'M/?mo&connGcrcciAppealsofVillage Bijwasan lA.App.No. 111/20,10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpiii ' Pa'^e26 of 2.9 would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find j no reason to take a different.view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this.Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. I'inding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil and Bhai-at Peu'oleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 Irom Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid lopational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity 'of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increasis over arid above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference •Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the l/i.App. Nti. U9L/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lA.App. No. 2!M/2010 & connected Appeals of Viilagp.Bijwasan lA.App. No; 1.1,1/2010 & connected Appeals of VlllaRe Pochanpur % J. ' -/ settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acqidredland had a bidldingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto account the increaseinprice attributable to such bidldingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactness'can never be achieved in the, matters of assessing'fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum pi ices (or the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired ,lands differentlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare.treatedat' par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Jiowever, while relying upon the decisionin Sushil Kumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational.advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the ' Reference Court mmatters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellants'ofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof lA.App No, .l.lM/2008&connoctGdAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App, !\lo.,?.91/l>010&connectGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan • l7\,App.No. 1U/20.1C&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' V the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands ofthese threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^ij^^rthe Category 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per bmha for the Category'B' lands in question. V

¶41On the aloresaid enhancement in the .compensation awarded, statutoiybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are •granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ior winch periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.,

¶42llie above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar General of this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. • , January 06, 2012 pkb LA.App. No. 119i;/2008& connficlcdAppealsofVillajjeBharthal I.A.App. No. 29'1/2010& connnctedAppoalsofVillageBIjwasan IA.App. No. 1.11/7.010&-connc!clbdAppealsofVillagePochanpur JUDGE nroi-Cory Pago 29 of 29 3^ a IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA • Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AinitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for . Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates ' versus UNIONOFINDIA& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, • Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer'K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 fFor correctioM). Hiis is an applicationfor seddngtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6"' Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page1 •\ h oftlie application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of e" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.-Accordingly/thisapplicationis allowedand it is orderedthattliereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No: 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be.cai-riedout forthwith. In vie-wof the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof ' JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 "TSUNILGAUR) JUDGE Page 2

=1= % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 137/2009 Reserved on: November , 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 UOI Appellant ; Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI : Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA versus PRATAP SINGH Through: Respondent Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepalc Khosla. Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent; in appeals filed by UOI) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR