UOI v. Shish Ram & Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008,titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & A nr. «L GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reservedon: NovemberiS. 20n_ (GRID-A) LA.Ai^P.l195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANB]R SHARMA a •n , Appellant .irough: Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.JitinTewathia,Advocates Mr.AnandYadavand Ms.AnitaToraar,Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodara,Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rouland Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari Advocates. Mr.PankaJVivek,Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav.Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhosla and Mr.l3han.aiijayMehlawat,Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya,Advocate Mr.Sandeep'i hakhur.Advocate Mr.AtulTripathi,Advocate. ' ' Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.II.S.Rauiela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) versus-I'NION 01-INDIA& ANR. Respondenvs IhroLigh; Mr.SanjayPoddar,Sen/orAd\'ocatewith Mr.Saajay Pathak,Mr.Molutrac./adha-rand Ms.NaviinSwain." Ms.K.KatimudiKiran.Advocatesfor LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,.Vls.BeenashawSorii.Mr.Mukesh Kumar,.MrS.K.Sethi,xMr.PawanMathur. IVIr.Kunal Sharma,Advocatefbi-DDA .No.5.0,^()0; (Cros.s-Omect!on.s): 1.. V.APP.768/2()0R; [.A.APP.77()/2008; I'-A-p.Ko. &r:onnoctRLiAppRalsofVill;,B(.. .' .'Ndo. N;;. /g4/Aj;iOfi t:onncricdAppiolsof Village-l^App. .vo 5ri./?010& conma«ctApp,al.ofViilaBc:l^ochanour PsKt! 1 of Z9 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 CCross-Obiections); 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; ].A.APP,829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.83.3/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-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-Oljjections); 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-Objections);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

1..A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.785 1/2009 (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.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0bjections); J.A.,APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); l.A.APP.107-3/2008; 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-Objcctions): LA.APP. 1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA;APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.l 109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (CrosSrObjections); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; f.A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP.l 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157./2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 16172008; LA.APP.l,166/2008 LA.APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/20Q9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.L!68/2008 LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l171,/2{)08;LA.APP.li72/2008;LA.APP.l17-3/2008 L-A.APP.l 175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.l 181/2008 LA.APP. 1182/2008; LA.APP. 11S3/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections)

1..A.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.APP. 1186/2008& CM,No.7013/2009 lA.App. No U9;j/?.n08& connccted Appeals of VillageBharthal l,A App. No. ZS'i/ZOlO& connected Appealsof VillageBijv/asan l.A.App. No. I.IJ./,'.010& connoctpclAppeal.^ofVillagePochaiiDu'r' Page 2 of29 % (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.l193/2008;LA-APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.l195/2008; LA.APP.l197/2008 LA.APP.l198/2008& 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.l241/2008& 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 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009;

1.A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA. APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP,224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/200?; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; l.A.APP.404/2010; LA^P.137/2009- •143/20^ LA:aPP.187'^009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 .138/2009 'APP. 144/2009 I.A.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 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.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,/20n; I.A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.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; LA.APP.il77/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.223/2009 CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.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.l 176/2008 (Relating lo 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 Bharthai, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December

¶082011 .. Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN).• l)].:VhN13hRKUMAR ...... Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh iy\.App.i\jo 119.'j/''-008& connectodAppeialsof VillageBhiirllinl IA.App. No. 294/2010& connectodAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App No, 1.11/7.010& conncctodAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocatewith Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for U(3I/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOL 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. 11/2010 1>AAPP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 r.A.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 J.A.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 ' LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP, 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 lA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 • LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP.75/2010& C.M.No.964/2011 (Gi 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. 352/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA..4PP. 362/2010 LA.APP, 407/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 725,/2010 LA.APP. 731,/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 oss-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 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722,/20]0 726/2010 .732,/2010

828./2010 Olelatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND • . • I.A.App, No .l,195/.2008& connectRdAppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. No, &connc!clfidAppealsof VillageBijwasan iA.App. iMo. nymw &conhectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur (GRID-C) Reserved on: Dp.r.pinber18. 2011 Pronounced on: Jamjgrv 06. 2017 LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJRAM AND ORS. Through; Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40 44 to49, 59, 63 to71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61,64,65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain..Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA; 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 LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA..^PP. I.A.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 523/20] 1 536/2011' 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 PP

1.11/2.010&connoctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. L.A.APP. L/V.APP. LA..AFP. LA.APP: LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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 129/2011 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. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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 522/2011 535/201 1 % (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNILGAUR ORDER

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of-appeals are identical, ' theretore with the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the healing ot these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating • to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Iochanpuiare beingdisposedotby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'IDwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue-Estatesincludingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j. Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein 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 ^ JBIock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?I2.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheiracquired LA.App. No. 1195/2008&conriKctedAppealsof VillageBharthal l.A.App.No. 291/20.10&connoctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' .°age6of29 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt vide impugned judgment had enhanced com.pensation@ ?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, reterences relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancementof compensation sought by the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate ofRupees « Mfty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate ofRupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, KarnatakaHousingBoard vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2see 246;AnjaniMoluDessaivs. Stateof Goa andAnr.,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 sec 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. J^s. Special Tehsiidar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 SCC 661; RanvirSingh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs V5. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer,Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (sincedeceased)throughLRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB);- Udho Dass vsr. State of Haryana & • Ors., 2010(9) SCALK 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALK 362; Avinash DhavdjiNaik vs. State ofMaharashtra,(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer&Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 sec 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, lA.App. No. ,11&!,/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthai • ;.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectndAppealsofVillageBijwasan •A.App. No in/20.1.0a connoctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • . Pae7of29 If Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175; RisalSingh Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr V5. 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) DLI 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority tSi. Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kum.ar vs. Union of India, decided on

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

(170)DLT371. ^

¶6On tlie strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationof the acquiredagriculturalland has to be fn-st 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 cannot be limited to the near iuture alone. 7, it was pointed out by Mr.R.S.lomar, counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land ofVillage Bha,rthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi l7\.App.No. ]195/2008& connectcdAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. iMo. 21M/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •. . . lA.App. l\lo. 111/2010&conn(!cU!dAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page8of7.9 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 Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarai Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 forBharat Petioleum and the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the westernside of VillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks ^izra^/mapto highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the. Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof 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 ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24'" 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 ReferenceCourt by relying upon P. Rama 1A.App. IMO. Ijfjrj/XOOS&connnctfldAppealsofVillage Bharthal lA App,.Nt).294/P.OlO&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA,App. connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur p g \? TTcT r (,995) 2see 305. wh.oh has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later ocisionmVdho Dms vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010(9)SCAI.E >ho,d."gthat the potentialof the acquired .and n,.st be adjudged <eep.ng.n v,ew the deve,op",e"tin the area overaperiodoftime and be limited to anear future alone and if after the -,u,s,t.on,ifthe authotitiesdo not put the ,and to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthereis no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placedby Mr.B.D.Sharma,learnedcounsel for the appclants upon the sevenSaleDeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight 'hat he sale pnccreflectedthereinvariedfrom .52 lacsto ?62 lacs and "Orey ccause of the said variation,these sale exemplarscannot be thrown out as itas been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because becausc of these sale exemplarsare overvalued " o^any spec,a,advantages'andas per settledlegal proposition - own b, the Apex Court in --SeOfsaleexempla.oughfto ! "- the marketpriceof the land which comesto tSy' -s PC, ae,e and s,neethe sale excnpla.reliedupon by the appellattts - .he comparable-saleinstances, therefore, .-eHance placed by the ererenccCourtuponth^minimumrates,/circleratesfor detenuiningthe ""'et-lu-'ftheacquiredland is patentlyerroneous , A-sjss,.entofmarketvalue of the acquiredland was soughtbv oo^^ridTtirr"" ^tetermincdrates ^ P-Pio. in the year2000-201^ ^"ernate P-otiality f rhe a ' and of its market value is LA.App. No. 234/:-',oio&connected ' ' ' Page10 of 29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyonthe basis of the L& DOrates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Detcrmined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above. ]2. In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part ,of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

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

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates,ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. ' d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin IA.App. No. .1.19.V2008&connRcVedAppealsof VillageUharthal IA.App. No. 294/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillageliijwasan 1-A.App.No. .1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa, 2010(13) SQC 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 adjudicatingupon compensationupona certanland f) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis much higherthan 15 lacper acre, in BlockAarid^13,36,000in BlockB in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ^ including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haiyana 2010(1) ^ see 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment •rejused to return an actualfinding on the issue No 1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal'was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesofDelhi State. Ihe ^masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential commercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinentto mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74^^ amendment Constitutionof India. w.e.f 1.61993 IX A by of which the Municipal CorporationAc?was amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor ' elections were hetd in the area. h) y apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme ..ourt 3467 Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia andrefusedto considerthefact that the developmentin area has a directefjecl on the price thai a willing purchaserwouldpayfor the.subjectland

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent,No. ,2 had also I.A.App^^0,1193/2008&connectedAppealsof i' AApp. No. mp.QiQ&connectedAppealsof VillageBilwasan ' .App. Ko. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur : • . 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 valuationof 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 possibilityofchangeof the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka 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 Notificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthe said land In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was heldthat thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value oj the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied bv the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands ) M'ere acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portionoJ 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 Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appelJantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethatthe effectof l.A.App.No. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur . ' urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatmyThivthkarvs. State ofMahamshtm,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapiiMehra(MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area are relevantto determinethe market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsarecomparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to as&ss the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin theseappeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be talcen as relevant'evidence for determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connectedwith the land in question and elemeht of special fancy ofthe purchaserand otherfactorsnamely,nature,situationofthe ^ property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsinJaiLa! n. Union ofIndia. 2002 (62) DIU 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) II SCC 423; La, Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.S56/2008titledas SushilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.201),it was urged thatsharpincrease in pricemashortperiodcannotbe taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increaseare explained by producingin evidencethe seller /appealsofVillage A.App, No. m/2010&connectedAppeafsofVillageBiiwasan i^.App.No. connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' ' • . and the purchaseras no prudentperson havingknowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suehahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instanceoi Radha S^ami 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-DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decisionof Apex Court in La, ChanU (supra) which has been followed by a ooordmateBenchofthis Courtin SushifKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra). i6. So far as potentiallyof the land is concerned,it was urged by M..SanjayPoddar, learned senior coimsel for the Respondents/cross-Objcctorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the mnnmum mdicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1- .April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon@n% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in SusHU Kumar (supra) app.ec.at,on@WA per amtum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor forthere.thancementfrom thepriceofacquired ^ lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned , judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enltancementby the Rofc-cnceCou.twhiletakingintoconsiderationthe appreciation 12% per annum and the same dese.-vesto be b.-oughtin line while granting appreciation @iO«/o per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. • ' • After considei-.ngthe nval submissionsadvanced by both the s. OS and upon closepe.-usalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon T --esis thatthetrue.narketvalue ° I™'' 'hepricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling AApTlIo'zSSr/ Page 1,5of 29 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionofpotentialvalue ofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass ra. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or village which,had been growingin size because ofits commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any Other kindof importanceor because ofits explosivepopulation; • I

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they ,residential, commercial or industrial,as the case may be;

(lii) possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput upon that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired land; ' "\ M) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupierscjfbuildings,if builton the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶181he potentialityofland for the puiposeofdevelopmentas also for buildmgpurposesdepends upon a large numberoffactors. For the said puiposc, the Court may not only have to.bear in mind the purpose for IA.App, No. 1195/?.008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 1-A.App. INJo, ?.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan W.App. No. 1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePociianpur ' d ic f,o I 3g6 Id Oi 29 W " nf 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 Avinash (supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevantfactors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsofsmall pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsoflargepiecesofland werenot available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC

¶714Ihe legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalfof the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either mlocation, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage availableto them even as regards future prospects, there is no justilicationfor reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It IS a well estabhshed proposition'of law that the burden of proving the true market value ofthe acquiredland is on the State who has acquiied the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. 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 Coun in Kiran Tamion(Supra)can be referredto with advantage,

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammai(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc;, had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent' observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserveattention,whichare as under:- IA.App. No. 1155,yoos&conncctedAppfialsof VillageBharthal ' A.App No. connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App.^0. 1.aUim&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highestofthe exemplars,which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. Where howeverthere are severalsales ofsimilarlandswhosepricesrange in a narrowbandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the marketprice. But where the values disclosedin respectof two sales,are markedly different, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are with referenceto dissimilarlands or that the lower value sale is on accountof under-valuation or otherpricedepressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted toj'

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note of the clinchingobservations pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as . follows:- "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactionsin respectof the land under acquisitionor in its absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreedbetween reasonableprudentpersons actingin the normalmarketconditionsare the real basis to ^ determine the marketvalue." 2j. Piinciplesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil amiNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra),are as under:- }rimarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity increase in prices'would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps: ' ' IA.App. ^0.1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhal ' !-A.App No, 2.94/2.010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan . lA.App. No, 11]/2'010a connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur r j, On the otherhand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, where the developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities'due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreper year, duringthe nineties. On the otherextreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated foryears or rose marginallyata nominalrateof1% or 2% per annum. There.is thus a significant difference in increases in market value oi lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increasesin market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 1-5%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat best be onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%per annum: This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices: then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe market value by providingappropriateescalationover the proved.marketvalue oj nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there IS no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonablysafe where the_ relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by onlyafew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond that It may be unsafe, even if it relates to a. neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is onlya fe\v years, may become unsafe and. unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired,in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or

1.A.APP..Mo, 1,195/2008&connoctodAppealsofVillageBharthai AApc. NO. J.9/1/2010&connfictedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan l.'VApD No. &connectedAppealsofVillagePochanp.j acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergodrasticchange apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase. 1his Courtis mindfuloftliedictumoftlieApex CourtinHaryana StateIndmtyialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIBC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods:What was said by the ApexCourtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or landswith different siliianonaladvantages)are acqmredforthe samepurpose •^av for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference^to previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acqun-ed land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of tlie period in questionare not availableand the solitaiysale exemplarstronglyrelied ^ upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale , ' Deedsvide which religiousinstitmion,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at aprice which variedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsperacre. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds(Ex.PW-I/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set ofco-ownersand RadhaSwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof Ihc landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answeied. Evidently,aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds A-App. No. 111/20]o& connnctc.dAppealsofVillagepochanpur Page 20 of 29 " (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.Itwas 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, iherefore,these sale 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-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants,tlad the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satscmg, 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. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh kv. Union ofIndia, 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 aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mammpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instantmatters,though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuch priorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing W.Aop. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal' l-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. iU/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 2^f 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 (Iix.PW-1/4 to Ex.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 appellantsis concerned,disclosing exorbitantprice of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"' 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 (Ex.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 exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice 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 Pre-Determined 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 highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedasP. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Offices' Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. ijoyvever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvalue of the acqidred land with buildingpotentialityM>ith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood IA.App. No. .1135/2008& connected.AppnalsofVillageQharthaf I.A.App. No. 294/:!03.0& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IA.App. No. 1.11/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page22 of 29 o % • r or whetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots 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 publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the^ acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasput and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto 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 increasedvaluefor such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots 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 adoptionofrate ofland charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transfeiTingperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Follov^ing the dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this 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.,l.l'j:i/?.008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. ,11J/201,0a connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA ratesfor allotmentofdevelopedlandor the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof ^ Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the yeai 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 pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincrease method in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland'onlywhen the gap is of 4-5 years and beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka 1hdse-IIis ofsixteenyearsand therefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. Mo. n9ii/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&conncctedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan li\.App.No. 111/2010&connectiidAppealsofVillagePochanpur pggg 24 of 29 r XT oscalationoverthemarketvalueofthe nearbylandofthepreviousyears.

¶34Mi.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebcnch of this Court in SushUKumar (Supra),has granted escalafon@10% per annum..After having perused the decision in SushUKumar (Supra),Ifind tiiat 10% increaseon accountof higher potentialityof the acquired land over and above the market value • determinedby the ReferenceCourthas beengrantedand so, by relying upon SmhUKumar(Supra)escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @12% per annumcannotbe reducedto 10%perannum.In thisviewof thematter,the cross-objectionsoftherespondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's mm,mumpriceofthe agriculturalland in Delhi,by the ReferenceCourt .s reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquired land and as to whethertlie escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date offixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. 1^'April,2000till the dateof Notificationin the instantappeals deservesto be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learnedcounsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to ' be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question'tobe urban.It is truethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut thatby itselfis not -sufficientto 'A.AppKo.ll9;y2(jo8&cann«^^^^ , • . AApp. NO. ..4/2010&conncctcdAppealsofVillageBljwasan •A.App. No, ;.o.iG&connGctRdAppealsofVillagePochanpur • • presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiahty for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere bemg any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein pricedue 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 in question.But, indeed appellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsoiRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Iix.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compens^itionwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view oi the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agricultural'landin 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 IA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan l-A.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur C( 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 fmd no reason to take a different view than the on© 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 ReferenceCourt in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I fmd that the aspectof higher potentialityof the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots a.nd of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters' vide road starting from NIi-8 from 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 aloresaid locational 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% increase over arid above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the l/v App. No. 119.0/2008& connecledAppealsof VillageBharthal l/v.App.No. 294/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App.No.-111/2010&connectedAppeakof VillagePochanpur V settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NaushevwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the posstbiiityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increaseinpriceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, 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. •40. Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellants'ofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof lA.App No. 119;i/2008& connocledAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. No. ?,94/;>010a connccledAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. .lU/2010&connectcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur r ag6 28 Or 29 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the'marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined ?16,50,000/- the Category 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per bipfea for the Category lands in question. r \

¶41On the aloresaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas 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, loi which periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid tenns 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 I.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connRctedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 11.1/20.10&connecledAppealsofVillagePochanpur T (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE •,u e-i - f-a^- ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -t-LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,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.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby LIGI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,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 0/,

12.01.2012 CM. ApdI. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'' January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice AApp.No.1195/2008 Page1 y ^ ^ iX) ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen giventoremainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008'be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be cajded out foKhwith. In viewofthe afbr^^d,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12,2012 pkb AApp.No. 1195/2008 WNIL GAUR) JUDGE Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November/'j?', 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 143/2009 UOI Appellant Thi'ough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr^Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.NavIin 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 forDDA versus SHISH RAM & ORS Respondent Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate ^ ^ Mr.SandeepThakhur, 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