UOI v. Dharam Pal Thr. Lrs

ORDER %

06.0L2012 Fororderssee LA.App.No.1195/2008,titledas 'RanbirSharmavs. Unionof India & Anr. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. % IN TBE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (GRID-A) Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP.l 1..95/20()8(VILLAGE-EHARTHAL) RANBJR SHARA4A Appellant riirough: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, MrJai Prakash;Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA''erma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohras, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate N4r.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K,R.outray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates, Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav; Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosia and Mr.Dhananjay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Flautela, Advocate Mr.LS.Dahiya, Ad\ ocate Mr.Sandeep Thakiiur. Advocate Mr.Atiil Tripatl;ii, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION ()]' INDIA & ANR. ....! Respondents 'I hroLigh; Mr.Sanjay Poddav,Senior Ad\'ocate with Mr.'Saajay Pathak, Mr.lViohitrao. .iadha\' and Ms.Navlin Swain. Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran. Advocates tbr L.A.C/L10I Mr.AJay Venna, Ms.Becnashaw Soni. Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr S,K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharm a. Advocate for DDA i,A.APP.412/2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cfoss-Objections),f.A.APP.452/2008; LA./\pP.453./2008;LA.APP,688/2008& CM.No:5990/20]0(Cross-Objedions); LA.APJ\697/2008& CM.No,433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cros.s-Otjecl;ion.s):

1... APP..768/200R; LA.APP.770/2008; I.A.A;>p. No. liy.V':OOB& connecled AppnalsofVilliigi;Bh;irlli:.i| IA.,'\ijp.No. /Sfi/'HYiCS corinuri.etiAppt.'-jisof-Village:Bliwaiitn IA.App. .T:i:i,.'?0.10ii coniKxic.dAppcaliofVlila{;c:l-ochanpiir ,Pugu I oi 2B 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.79,9/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.lMo.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-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) A.AP!M032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008 l.,A.APP.l047/20Q8;LA.APP.1048/2008& CN4.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.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections); I.A.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2.009 (Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2()08 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); i..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.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA:APP.l108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l109/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1115/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008; lA.APP.l 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPJM 130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 & CM,N6.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP.l 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l137/2008& CM.No.17283/20()8\Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l140/2008; 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 161/2008; LA.APP. 1166/2008 LA..APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/20a9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008 LA.APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP. 1171/2008; LA.APP; 1172/2008; LA.APP. 1173/2008 I.A.APP. 11 75/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008 , LA.APP.l 182/2008; LA.APP.l 183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections) I.A.APP.n84/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP. 118672008& CM.No.7013/2009 1A.App. No. j VJ!i/2n08 & connnctcd Appeal.sof Village Bharthal LA App. No. '/9^/2010 Si connected AppeaLsof Vlllaga Bljv./asan 17\.App.No. ;L.1.:i./;iniO& connoctoci Appeal.';of Village PocKanour' % (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.l190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.l192/2008 LA.APP.l 193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP.l197/2008 LA.APP.l 198/2008& 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-Objeclions); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.I241/2008& CMNo.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; LA.APP. 109/2009; CM.No.953/2011 LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; l.A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; ,LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/20] 1 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; • LA.APP.227/2009; LA.y\PP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP,245./2009;

1.A.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; lA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; [.A.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; I.A.APP.572/2009; 1,A.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; 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; LAAPP. 15/2010; LA.APP.l 3/2011; I..A.APP.295/2009; LA.AP?.447,''2009; LA.APP.4S0/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009: LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP.l 138/2008; l.,/\.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP,1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 (5 LAAPP.135/2^ LA.APP. 13 9/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP'. 191/2009 L A. 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. 1176/2008 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the I..and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRI.D-B) Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BIJWASAN), DHVENDER KUMAR Appellant Through: ,Mr.R.S.Toniar, Mr.Virendra Singh lA.App. No .ia9.'j/-008 & coiinectod Appeals of Village Bharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof Village BIjwasan l.A.App No. T.L.1/2010& connectod AppeaLsof Village Pochanpu.' , Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.R.outray,Advocates^forappellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75,76) versus UOl & ANR . 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 & LA.APP r.-A.APP. L,A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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. Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadha^^ and Ms.NavMn Swain, Advocates forUOI/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.BankeyBihar 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. 221/20JO LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 35],'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. 28672010 • LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (C LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010, LA.APP. 55,'2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 I.A..APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP, 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA..APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 • LA.y\PP. 407/2010 LA.APP, 408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. 722,/2010 lA.A??. 725,/2010 LA.APP. 72672010 LA.APP. 731./2010 LA.APP.'732,/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010, LA.APP. 99/2010 & .• 'rof;s-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo. F,10(30)96-L&B/LA/1341:7.dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) ' • AND-I.A.App. No llSfj/ZOOS& connected Appealsof Village BharlhnI I.A.App.,Mo,2<J'!//010& conncctcdAppealsofVillage Bijwasan i,/\.App.i\lo. l li/.^oia & conneclodAppealsof VillagePochanpur . l-ago 4 of 29 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 l.A.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, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant inR-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanJay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain. Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forDDA. 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.APP. LA.APP, l.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 52372011 536/2011 . 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 , 525/201] 554/2011 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. 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-. LA.APP. LA..A.PP. 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 129/201] 521/2011. 526/2011-591/2011 . 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 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. LA.App. No. U95/2008& connactodAppealsofVillagG Bharthal W.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App No 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur. Page 5 of 29 . % (Relating to Notification No. F.1.0(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER'

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, theieioiewith the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing 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 Pochanpurare beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'l)warka Phase- //' 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 thirteen Revenue Hstates includingvillages,in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j. Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three 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 1acs per acre for IBlock A (level field —witn top soil) and @^12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil). '

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired ITV.App. IMo. 1195/2008& connRctedAppeals.ofVillage Bharthal. l./(.App.No, 29'V?-0.lO& connectedAppealsofyillagG Bljwa.san l7\.App.No, 111./2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur ."age 6 of. 29 A agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 7and 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 Fiftylacs per acre, whereas appellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensatipn at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions. in Executive Engineer, Karnalaka Homing Board Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors.; (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai w. State ofGoa and Anr.,

(2010) .13 see 710; Subk Ram and Ors vs.. State ofHaryana and Anr,, • (2010) 1 sec 444; Sangunthala

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

(D) through LRs w. 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) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana & Ors., •. 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALli 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 SCC \1\\ 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 Sabhd & Ors,. decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 7,14; Thakarsihhal Devjibkai and ors Executive Engineer, I.A.App. i\io. :li9f)/?008 a conru!ct«d Appnals of Villagp.aharthai l.A.App. No. 7.94/ZOlO&.connected Appeals of Village Bijwasnn iA.App. No in/20.10 & connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' ' ' ' • Page 7 of29 Gujarat ami Ann, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15- 'RisalSingh& Ors. Fs, UnionofIndia& Ann, 2006 (89) DRJ621 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAm vs. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh - •Battatray 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 SiiratSingh vs. Delhi Development,Authority & Anr., decided'on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs: UnionofIndia,-(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal Sl 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 ShuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near liiturealone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.lomar, counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line, of•'Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into two parts, • i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwaylineis the tGI Aiiport,New Delhi u\.App. No. ii;j5/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharihal IA.App. No. 29'1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan . ' . lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillaRfiPochanpui- • 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 developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalldia. It was also.pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands of VillageBharthaland Village Pochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizrasluv^i to highlight that the 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 Notification of 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 of the 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. Ijy5/;ffl08 & connoctfldAppealsof VillageBharthal I A A nn/i rt o . ..... • « . lA.App. No. Ijy5/;ffl08 & connoctfidAppealsofvillageBharthal i.A App"No.29/|/;!010& connGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App, No. lll/;!0'i.0 & conneclcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex eourt in its later decisionin Udho Pass ra. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SeALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time 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 mean thatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliance.wasplaced by Mr.B.D.Shai-ma,learnedcounsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale DeedsofVillagePochanpiirto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom'?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 concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued ,becauseof any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessaivs. StateofGoa mdAm-.,(2010) ISSCC710,the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe market price of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon theminimumrates/circleratesfor detenniningthe maiketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Cfodai-a,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates hxed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmeM of alternate plots in the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is lAApp. No. n9V2008& connectedAppealsof Vll^ • • A.App. No. 2J4/?0.1.0&connectodAppealsof VillageBIjwasan LA.App No. a 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 written synopsis, appellant ^ Impulse India Private Limited ofJ.A. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugnedjudgment on the followhiig grounds a) "Ignores the acknowledgem.ent on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated ;

¶23J0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination of 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

11.9.2001issued by the GovernmentofNational Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the laM! laid down by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, Sangunthala versus Tahsildar. 2010(3) see 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the value ofthe land under .acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the irial Court whereas as per thedaw established by the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in the recent • • case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Honlole Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deed,showinghigherrate shoiildnot be disregardedin I.A.A[)p.No. 119')/2008& conriRcledAppealsofVillage liharthal lA.App, No. ?94/2010& connacUidAppealsofVillage liijwasan iy\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur .• pggg^ jg case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 20.10(15) 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 Haiyana 2010(1) SCC ^444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.l 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 Notifications 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.ef.

1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act yvas amended and the area vAwre the Icmd is situated, was • ,' • deemed a 'municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from there, No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR: Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir-Singh .and Anr v^. Union of India and refused to consider thefact that the developrnentin ^ the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser would pay for the-subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Re-spondent 'No. 2 ' had also I.A.App.No. 1.195/?.Q08& connficled AppoaLsof VillagoBharthal I.A.App. Mo. 29'1/ZOlO& connected Appealsof Village Bijwa.san '• LA.App. Mo. 111/2010& conncctedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur , Page IZof29 ¥y 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-determined auction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It 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 of the said land. In Sangunthala V. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe land has got buildingpotentiality!to 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 appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsofthe otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfof the appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnaiidYadav, Advocatethat the effectof I.A.App. Mo. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofyillageBijwasan LA.App. No. .111/2010&connccted.Appealsof VillagePochanpur • Page 13 of29 urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mekra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesrelied uponby the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation rcflcctingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counselurged that though as per Section51--Aof J.and AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified 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 fancy of thC'purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsinJai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal S. Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand v,s\ Union of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09^2011,it was urged thatsharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for SLich sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/Z00a& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App. No. ?.94/20ip& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. :iu/?.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • ' Page14 of 29 v. and the purchaseras no prudentperson having loiowledgeof the usual ' pievalenttrendin 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-DctcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra), which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SusMlKumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So lar as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel lor the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1'' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! 'Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scopefor fortherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RcicrenceCouH:whiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in 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 recordand the decisionscited,what emergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparablelandis the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling l-A.App. No. Il!i5y;;008&connoctHclAppealsof VillageBharthgj l-A.App.No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App, No. connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 1.5of 29 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, 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 situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population; •(ii) the suitability of the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) possibility of obtaining water and electric supplyfor occupants of buildings to beput up on that land;

(iv) absence ofstatutory impedimentsor 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 close proximity ofth.e 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-demand for building purposes, to specify a few. "

¶18'I'hepotentialityof land for the purpose,of developmentas 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 IA.App. [Mo. .11.95/7.008& connected Appealsof Village Bharlhal l.A.App. No. 2.')4/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bljwusan ' • , l-A,App.No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur. - Page16 of 29 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). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, 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 reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr w. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf 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 btirden 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 (Supra) 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 observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- L'\.App. No. 1.1.55/2008& corinoctedAppoalsof VillageBharthal 1A.App. No. ZSil/^OlOa conncctcdAppaalsofVlllagR Bijwasan . , ' - LA.App. No. &conncclcri Appealsof VillagePochanpur "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 whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of tM'O 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. " - .

2.2. Il would be worthwhile to take note of the clinehing observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as . follows:- "// 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 determine the 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 development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be-slow, steady and •gradual, yvithoutany sudden spurts or jumps. IA.App. No.],195/?.008& connfictsd Appeals of village Bharllial ' • i.A.App. No. ?.9'1/2'010& connccted .Appeals of Village Uijwasan lA.App. No. iai/20.1.aa connectedAppealsofVillagePochar,pur Page18 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 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per 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 be applied would depend upon the.same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value-by providing appropriate escalation over the proved .market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the, rdied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to-fiveyears. Beyond thai it may be unsafe, even if it relates-to a. neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the m.arket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or l.A.App. Mo, 1195/2001?& connectfidAppealsofVillageBhartha! . ' ' ' , " • l-A.Apo. Mo. ?..9/|/2010& connficted Appeals of VillageEijwasan L",.ApiD No. 11.1/2010&';ConnGctedAppealsof VillagePochanp'jr ' Page19 of29 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is " • because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual . increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnationin prices or sudden spurts inprices affectingthe verystandard of increase. " , '

¶24This Court-ismindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex CourtinHaiyana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC) (Supra),regarding computaLion of compensation for' the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC - (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)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 uniform,rate of compensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacqiaredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired iand 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., Radha SwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which arc basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighas,and 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflect.thecorrectmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to-be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds iy\.App.No. 1195/2008& coniiGctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA,App. No. 284/20.10& connoctcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan ... " ' . . l7\.App.[Mo. 1:11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePocha.npur - ' ' ' Pagezoofzg' m. (Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that 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. It was dependentupon the nature and 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, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as 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 agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants.Ilad the purciiaser/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 subject matter in.LA. App. No. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh ra. Union of India, decided on'23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh w. 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.

¶27In the instantmatters, 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 evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing l.A.App. No. 1.195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&. connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan t.A.App. No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' 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 (lvx.PW-1/4 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 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.P W-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 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 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 acqvdred land with buildingpotentiality Md.th reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayout in the neighborhood IA.App. No. llf):i/2008 & connertHd Appeals of VillageBharthal I.A.App. No.294/20.1.0& connected Appsals of Village!Bijwasan lA.App. No. .1.1.1,'20.10 connectodAppealsofVillagePochanpiir • . Page 22 of29 or M'hetherit he the determinationofthe market valueofthe acquired land with building potentiality with reference to thepricefetched by sale ofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out what will be the price fetched or to befetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any oftheparties, with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetched ifsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) oj the Act. Further, where 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 acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put 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 land found 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 evidence of sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the accjuired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " .

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land charged by the DDA alter acquiringthe 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 ShsMI Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not-relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No..n.<j|!/200«& connnctodAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 291/^010& conncclndAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. ail/?010&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur' Pape23of29 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquu'edagriculturallandsin question.

¶32' Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into considerationthe earlier acquisitionof the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for 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 compounded rate 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 developmentof DwarkaPhase-II, still the 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 IJ\.App.No. .n9i;/2008 & connoctGdAppealsof Village Bharthal ITV.App. No, 294/2010& conncctndAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur » Page 24 of29 escalationoverthe marketvalue of the nearbyland of the 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 coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushU Kumar (Supra), 1 find 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 Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court @ 12% per 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 of the 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 April,2000till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum 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 that vide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994theland use oi the acquiredland had changedbiit that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App. No. ]19.S/2doS&connectedAppeiilsofVillageBliarth;ii lA.App. No. /!(.)4/2010&, connoctfidAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App, No. :n.l/:'.0.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideiedas developedlands. Ihe evidenceled is lacking on the vital aspectofthere 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.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityof the-acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid their hands on other sale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (lix.PW-l/li)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplar of VillageSamalkha(bx.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treateid to be sufficient giound to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the-aforesaid sale instances. Iherefore, in viev/ of. the afore-referreddictum of-the Apex Court in Haryana State hidustnalDevelopmentCorporation (HSJDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded tor,the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price tixed 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 lAAop. No. 1135/2008&connectedAppealsnf VillageBharthal ' ' ' LA.App. No, 294/2010&conneciedAppealsof VillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpLit . , ' •-. w 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 Siishil Kumar (Supra) and I fmd 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. iMnding 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 fmd that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport,, Indian Oil and Bhai-at Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthahand 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 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 acquired lands is the lA.App. No.119L/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageQharlhal l7\.App.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan I.A.App.No.-111/2010&connectedAppeiilsof VillagePochanpur •" \ settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mina NcmsherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its market ' value talcinginto account the increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto provide a • definite value qua potential,and in view ofthe fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices (or the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil^ Kumar (Supra),1am inclined,togrant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the ,aforesaid locational advantages piovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of ' awarding10% increaseoverand above the marketvalue assessedby the Rcfcrence Court in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,-theappealsof ' l.^-App No. U9;i/2008&corm.clcdAppealsof VillageBharthal ' • . AApp. Mo, ?,91A'010& conriGcludAppealsof Village'Bijwasan• • • • .' • l-A.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Y the appellants of Village Poclianpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these three villagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perjj^gjforthe• Category 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per bi^ha for the Category 'B' lands in question. |.V^'

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in, Sunder V5. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwhere there is a delay in filingthe appeal, ior which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to' remit the compensationamount,if any, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. January 06, 2012 pkb LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 2!M/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur n (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Pago 29 of 29 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI , + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSI-IARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S-Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates • Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate - Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.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 UNION OF INDIA&ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar,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.SomerK.Seth, Advocates for DDA. I? CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE.SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'' January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 ' * • Page1 ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor 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 of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this apphcationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No! 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be caj-ried out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 UNIL GAUR) JUDGE Page 2 <>1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % LA.APP. 135/2009 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 DHARAM PAL THR. LRS 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.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