UOI v. Lakshmi Chand & Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Am.'. -===^i§uSH^GAUR) 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. V i. IN THE HIGH COURT OF % Reserved_gjr / Pronounced on: JanuoiyJM PJIJZ. (GRID-A) I LA.APP.l195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBlRSHAmA .....Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.y-\mitMaan,Mr.J.aiPrakash,Ms.Smiia Maaii, Mr.Il.S.VeriTia,Mr.Jitm Tewathia, Advocates Mr.AnandYadav and MsAnita Tomar, Advocates', Mr.Rohtas; Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.R.autela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.R.outray,Mr.M.Azamy\nsari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitIChosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehjawat, /Vdvocates Mr.Ji.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.)3ahiya, Advocate Mr.Sajideep Thakhur. Ad^'ocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiahci Mr.[l.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appeals filed by UOI) versus ()]• INIJIA& ANR. Respondents 1hroiigh; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdA'ocatewith Mr.Saajay Pathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Nax'linSwairJ •Ms.K.KaumiidiKiran, Advocatestw LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma, Ms.BecnashawSoni. Mr.lVlukesh Kumar,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocfite for DDA • i^ CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections),LA.APP452/'7008-hA.M P.4f>,J/2i)08; LA.APP.688/2008,& CM.No.5990/20]o'rCross-Objeclions)- cm'1r (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i/2008"& CM.No.5,0,^009 (Cross-Omections); L APP.-/68/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; l-A-App. rio. liyv;;00s&conncctedAppealsof Villagf;Bharllial I'^-App. Na. /91/A)J0S t.oniuin.sdAppc.-jlsof VillagnBiiwaian lA.App. ir,;j,/:;0:l0ficonnocwdAppealsof village:l-ochanour Pago 1 of 29 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/20()9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); 'LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cros,s-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); LA.APIM032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP. 1048/2008& ,CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1050/2008; LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 052/2008; 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.1057/200S & 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); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 •& CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & 'CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.1103/2008 &. CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA;APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; 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-Objectioas); 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; r.A.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.1131/200?] & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/20081& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); lA.APP. 1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(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.l159/2008;• LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.l170/2008; LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.1173/2008; LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.l179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections)' LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.l185/2008;'LA.APP.l186/2008& CM..No.7013/2009 I.A.App. No. 1195/2008& connpctGdAppeal.^ofVillageBharthal Uv.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan " l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connecteclAppealsof VillagePochanour'' ' ' ' Page2of 29 r % (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP. 1,190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008; LA.APP.}195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP.1198/2O08& 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.12]3/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008; LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.1279/2008; LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008' LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009'; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/2009' LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA-A£Eaai/2QQ9;^^LA^^^l35/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA. APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; L.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009 LA.APP. 143/2009 LA.APP. 187/2009 LA.APP. 198/2009 LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.210/2009 LA.APP. 138/2009 MPFT4472()^ LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & & 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. 13/2011; LA.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. 1177/2008;LA.APP,1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 ..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.3 05/2009 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 Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002-VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 I LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN).• DliVENDERKUMAR ......Appellant riirough: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App, No 1195/2008& conneclndAppealsofVillage BharUiai !.A,App.,Mo. 2f)4/?.010&coniiGcledAppealsof VillageBijwasan l.A,App No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur r ci^L D or <c.y iV Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2.14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR Respondents Through; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals • filed by UOI. ' 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.AFP. U/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.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(Ci 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 LA.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.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP, 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731,/2010 LA.APP.732/2010 LA.APP.;764/2010 LA.APP.828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & oss-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&.B,tA/13417dated 13,12.2000 Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/^002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND • • • iAApp, No. .1,195/2008&conncctedAppealsof VillageBharihal • I.A,App, Mo. 294//OlO&connt!cl(!dAppnalsof VillageBijwasan I.A,App. No. 1,1.1/20.10&con,^ecu•dAppealsof VillagePorha.npur ' . I^age 4 of 29 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2017 J.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through; Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma,Mr.S.K-.SoIankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36to 40 44 to49, 59, 63 to71) 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.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain.Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. 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. LA.APP. I-A.APP. LA.APP. LA.API'. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 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.A.PP LA.APP 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. 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 526/20] 1 591/2011 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 522/20]1 535/2011 ,| A.App. NO. 1195/2008&connoctedAppealsof Vill.ReBharlha' 111/MlO&conneclfidAppealsof VillagePochanpur (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MM. JUSTICE SUML GAUR ORDER

06.01,2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and I ochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'D\mrkaPhase-II 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 Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellaiitsherein in the aforesaidthi'ee villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward ,No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@^13.82 lacs per acre for l^lock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and ?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(\A'ithoutop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheir acquired l-A.App.No, 1195/2008&connc-ctadAppeals.ofVillageBharthal ..A.App. No. 29d/2010&connfictedAppealsof VlllaBP Bijwasan ^A.App, No. 111/2010&conn.ct.dAppealsof VillafiePochanpu, agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

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

(2010) 13 see 710; Suhh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Ann,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

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

(I)) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, 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 ys'. State of'Haryana. & Ors., \ 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCAL]'. 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.(e) No. 4143/2003"titled as Smt. Indu Khorana Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer Anr vs. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 S(X^ 714; ThakarsihhaiDevjibltaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, lA.App. Mo. .US:)/?008fi cunnnctRdAppealsofVillage.Bliarthai l.A.App. Mo. 7.94/2010&• connHctndAppealsofVillaRe Bijwasan iA.App. No .111/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • • . . Pa.e7of23 Gujarat ami Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCO 115-,Risa!Singh& Ors. Fs. UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);La!Chandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; VaUiyammalandAnr vs. 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 ofIndia & Anr, 176(201I) DLT 361; W.l'.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SumtSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority& Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRsandOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627-Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

26.09.2011; 1,A. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram re. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRamvs. UnionofIndia,2010

(170) DLT 371. t>. On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants dtat the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area overaperiodof time and the same cannotbe limitedto lie nearftturealone.

¶7It was poimed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi^lewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of V.Uage Bharthal.dividingit into two parts. I.e., on the easternsideofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connmcdAppealsof VillageBharthal A.App. No. 294/20.1,0&connpcletjAppealsofVillageBijwasan 'A.App. Mo. m/20.1.o& connectedAppealsofVillagoPochanpLir ' ^ ' 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 Pait-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 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 for Bharat Petioleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-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 sizras/mapto highlightthat the boundary ol 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 potentialityoI 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 counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon R Rama iA.App, No. 1135/2008&connfictedAppoalsof VillafieBharthal !A.Apri..No, 294/2010&connGcU?dAppoalsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/20.1.0&connuctodAppnalsof VillagGPochanpur / Redd,& Ors. ^s. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ore, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Vdho Dass vs. StateofHaryma& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingin view the developmentin dre area over aperiodof time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe autlroritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiahty.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Shanna,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom f52 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 because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnimiMoluDessai vs. StateofGm "ndAtrr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe market price of the land which comes to ?57 laes per acre and sincetlie sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the A ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe 4-. marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. J1• Assessmentofmarketvalue of the acquiredland was sought bv Mr.R.(;odara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe I& DO rates fixed by the Governmcijt and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate Piotsmthe year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potontiahtyof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is Appe.l.of VillagePochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis ofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedJudgmenton the following grounds a) Ignores the acknoyvledgeinenton the part of the respondent about the AM>ard No.26/2002-2003dated

23.J0.2002 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 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the Imv laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. \ 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'bleSupremeCourt in the recent case of^ Chinda Fakira Fatil versus Special Land : AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The "^jonjeSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin No. 1195/2008&connGclHdAppwl.sof VillageUharthal -A./)PP..No,291/2010&connecttidAppealsof VillageUijwasan •App. No. 111/2010&connecleoAppeafsofVillagePochanpur Papellof29 <0 / case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a. certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the marketvalue of the land is much higher than 15 lacper 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 v\y. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence,'the impugned judgment •refised to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 ^ framedon 27.2.2007. g)•Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notificationof 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 noM> under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notif,cations of Governmentfor 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 appellantlead evidencein respectofthe 74"' ainendmenf of the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of M>hich the Municipal Corporation Act was ^ amendedand the area where the land is situated, was • deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor > ^ 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 ofIndia and.lefusedto considerthe fact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpayfor, thesubject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2' had. also l-A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal !.A,App,No. 291/2010&connp.cledAppeals"ofVillage Biiwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur p •V) /• auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about t2.6 lakh and concluded that the •said land is M'hollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthe possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of ly.varka Phase 11 It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal yvas changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthe said land.. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA)^ (2010) 3see 661 itwas held,that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of 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 by the bulldmgs are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportionojthe land is beingconsideredas W adjoining lands have the potential of .y beingput in betteruse as housesitesin the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the factual details have been providedwith aprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin these bunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.Aria.ndYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof i.'•App, IMo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal , '•'^ •App.No.294/2010& connectedAppealsof Village Uiiwasr,n ' ' I'>..App.IMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Makesh Dattatray Thirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (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 infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. ]hus, 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-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence lor aetermination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationof the piopeity,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand. vs'. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009).15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union of India, decided on 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such shaip inciease are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA-App No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.A|PP. No. 251/2010&connectedAppealsofVlllai^eBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillaROPochanp • Paf;cl4of29 -T' and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendmthe marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale mstance 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-DetcrmmedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court mLai Chaml (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SushilKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerncd,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel fur the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factored into, while fixing the minimiimindicativepriceoftlie agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been en'oneousiy determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted . thatthereis no scopefor furthereiJiancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land Acqui.sitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the eniiancemcntby the RclerenceCourtwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe appreciation@12% >•. per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while granting appreciation @10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringthe rival ..submissionsadvanced by both the s.des and upon closepemsalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthetruemarketvalue orthe comparablelandis thepricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling pp. 0. .l.a.L/20x0&connectedAppp.lsof VillagePochanpur h <1 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass ra. State of Haiyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind,of importanceor because of its explosivepopulation;

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

(ill) possibilit)^ofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding. areas of the acquired land which m.ay become \ 'a^'ailableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and (vii.) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to specif)) afew. "

¶181he potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. For the said puipose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharlhal ' l.A.App. [Mo. ?.,'M/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageIBijwasan LA,App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscould not be a groundto discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid;dictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special , Land AcquisitionOfficer& Am-vs, MJL RafiqSakeb, (2011) 7 SCC •714. The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behall of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationonthe groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well establishedproposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired 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 Court in Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto Vvith advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammai(Supra),while takingnote 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) deserve attention, which are as under:-- L-X.App. No. 11S5/200S&conncd.edAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No, 294/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillaBoBijwasan W.App. No. .111/201.0&connccrcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur T "The legal position is that even M'here there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, iisimlly the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, M'ill be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands yvhoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are yvith reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching 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 bonafide 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 norm.al market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developm.entin the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof developm.entin the vicinity, ina^ease in prices'would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. i.A.App. No. jj.95/2008& connoclGdAppnalsofVillageBharliial ' ' i.A.App. No. 294/2010& connnctedAppealsofVillasoBijwa,san i.A.App.No. in/20.1.0Si connectedAppealsofVillaBG Pochanpur Pagel8of29 On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster^ where the demandfor 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 developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices sta.gna:ted for years or rose marginallyat a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in •virba.n/semi-urba.n areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in ma.rket value in _ urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, W 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 appliedwould,dependupon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determiningthe market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidencedby sale transactions or acquisition),where there is no evidence ofany contem.poraneoussale transactions or • acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is iqjtofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring kind. What may be a reliablesiandardifthe gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and. unreliable standard. wheie the gap is larger. Tor example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or LA.App,No. ligs/ZOOg&connRctndAppealsofVillage Bhartha! lA.Apc. No. 294/2010&connnctedAppealsof VillageEijwasan LA.App No. .11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePociianp'ir • ' " r T ^ acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the "rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartf^om the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurtsinprices affectingthe verystandard of increase. "

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictum ofthe Apex Court in Haryana StateIndmtnalDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "PVhendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different kSiluationaladvantages)are a.cquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with 1efei'encetoprevious status or situation should be a.voided. and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification." 25, Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquiicd land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionaie 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 puichased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs,peracre.

26., WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in rcspcctofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds LA.App. No. .1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App, No. 291/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. l.M/2030&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • ' T (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.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,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~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeofthese agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeofthe afoiesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have bee;n elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swwni Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25"' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siiigh w. Union of India, decided on ^

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamuipurwas discardedwhilelioldingthat the same cannotbe tj-eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agricultural,purposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing l|App,No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharlhal• l-A,App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur T 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 (lix.PW-1/4 to Bx.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 (Hx.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 letched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for' the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Prc-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P, Ram Reddyam! Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., ]995 (2) SCC 305 are as undcr:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlandyvith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby saleofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood . iA.App. No. .1.195/2008&connccletJAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No, 294/2010&conncctedAppealsof Village[)ijwa.san iA.App, No. .1.11/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur T or M'hetherit 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 preliminaiynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what coidd be done is tofi^d out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to'the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(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 ofgiving increasedvaluefor such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " Jl. In view of the diffieultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the i:iDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same,and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in lal Chan,I (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/I^re-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chiind(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushii Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of I^An^ connectedAppwlsof Village?L'harthal •vAn T ^ "fVillageBijwaMD ' . pp. Mo. :i.1/M.1.0&connectedAppeaLsof Villap,ePochanp lur 57/ T the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates,for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question. j2. Now 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, learned senior counsel 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 developmentofDwarkaPhas.e-II,stillthe price,fixed 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 only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phasc-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market^ value by providing appropriate l-A.App.No. ]1.9b/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan l-A.App.No. Ul/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 24 of 2!) T escaJationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearb)'land ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.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 cooidinatcbcnch of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushiJKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account ofhigher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum, hi this view of the mattei,the cioss-objectionsol the respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's' minimumprice ofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor. determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the RefeienceC,ourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor 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 Nofificafionof 24"^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be uiban. It is true that vide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ol-the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto l-A.App. No. U9S/2dOS&connGctGdAppealsof VillageBharlhal " ' ' .A.App.No.^fM/?.010&connoclndAppealsof VillageRijwa,an l-A.App,No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur T I presume thai the acquired lands had gained potontiahty for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof tlierc being any developmentin and around the acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyrelied upon by the appellantsdisclosethattlie sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpuipose.

¶37Rather, it emerges fi-om the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, I894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use'post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalklia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat (lie qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Salscmg. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Hx.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired.land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW^l/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ^ ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid ^ sale instances.Therefore, in view of tlie afore-referreddictum of tlie Apex Court in Baryam State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded ior tlie lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price lixed by the Governmentfor the agricultural-land in Delhi, which generally factors in the' rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is agap between what >• 'PP. No. Ill,20.10&connectRdAppealsof VillagePochanpur • • Page 26 of 2.9 would be cxpected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalprice has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands inJai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushil Kumar (Supra)and I find no reason to take a differentview 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'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation oi the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I fmd that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,Indian Oil and ' Bharat PetroleumDepots and ofRailway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehow missed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof' albresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhase-L Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarket value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the l-A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectodAppealsof VillageBliarthal l7\,App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageSijwasan LA.App. No; 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur T settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mina NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- •mien once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingm Ziflf "^arfuture, such conclusion wou d be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland tiad a buildingpotentialityandproceedto determineits market r inpriceattributable to such, buildingpotentialily."

¶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 .rrattersof assessitrgfair compensation,it >s broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem wtth equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum pr.ces lor the agriculturallands for cottrputingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands d.lTercntlyand so, appellatrtsof VillagePochanpurare treated at pat with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal anri Village Bijwasair.However, while relying upon the decision in SmkU liumar(Supra),1am inclmedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe raaiketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin matteis on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,tliese appeals are partly allowed to the extern of awarding")% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ecence Court mmatterspertaining,to VillageBharthal and Village ^'iwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith 1U/20.U.&connoctcdAppa.ni.,ofVillagePochanpur the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to tlie extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands ofthese threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perjj^^lbrtile January 06, 2012 pkb IAApp. No. .1195/2008&connoclodAppealsof VillapeBharthal .A.APP. NO. 2W,oiO&connactedAppealsofVillageBiSan •App. No. ...n/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagGPochanpur Category 'A' land and @?I4,69,600/-per b^forthe Categ'^^^"'B'' lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in tlie compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (iiS) DLT 569 are granted,excepttor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, lorwhichperiodofdelay no intereston theenhancedcompensationshall ' be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof m the albresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit tlie compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eithersidewith the Registrar Cieneral ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordingl}'prepared. fat / IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SI-IARMA Appellant Through: Mi-.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.jMegi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mi'.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by 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, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI . ' Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, - Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mi'.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. I COI^M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % 12,0L2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrectionin Orderof6"' January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice — '• niiTiniiinitiwf in,,—..r-r I ruwr^ LA.App.No.1195/2008 p^gg ^ ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointedout by the respondentin the decision of 6'" Januaiy. 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aioiesaidjudgmenttlie rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellaaits.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthattirereferenceto "perbiglra'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/200? be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe caiTiedout forthwith. In vjcw o£ the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY12, 2012 JUDGE pkb Page 2 Iff)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November /g, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 + LA.APP. -138/2009 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 Verraa, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA versus LAKSHMI CHAND «fe 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.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