UOI v. Hari Chand & Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vi'. Union of India & Anr. 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. % Kes_^edo}iiNov^^ Pronounced on: January ()^ 2012 (GRID-A) ! LA.APP.1195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIRSHARJN'IA Appellant Ihrough; Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.AnandYadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Routand K4r.B.K,Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhosla and Mr.Dhananjay MehlaAvat,Advocates Mr.ILS.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.AtuI Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand MrJI.S.Rautela, (Advocatesfor respondentin appeals filed by UOI) versus , b'NIONOF INDIA& AMR. Respondents 1hrough; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAd\'ocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao-Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Ms.K.KaumiidiKiran,Advocatesfor LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Ms.BecnashawSoni. Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr.S,K,Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocsite for DDA

1.A.A.FP.412/2008&. CM.No.,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections),L\.APP.452/'7008-I'l'"4pI>'!*07S!!1!' ^ CM.No.5990/20l0'(Cross.Objeclions);" J,A.A1J .()•; ,^2008 <k. CM,No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP,701/2008& C.M.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objectioa.s); I...\,APP,768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; I.A.App, I^Jo, UiVjp'Xm&coPticclRdAppHiilsof Villagn Bhartli:.il iA.,Aop, No, /94/?0a0&conncctedApp(..:j|.sof Village-Biiwiisjn !A.App, &connrandAppealsof VlllaRc I'ocHanour Pago 1 01 ?,9 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.-819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; 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.91 5/2008; 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. 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-0bjection3); LA.APP. 1060/2()08;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/200S & 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.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP. 1111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objection,s); 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; [.A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.l130/2008; LA.APP.l131/200?^ & CM,No.566/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008&' CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008 LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP. 1157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008 LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008 LA.APP.l 170/2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA.APP. 1173/2008 LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.l 181/2008 LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933./2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP.l 186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009

1.A.App. No. ]195/2008 & connected App0al.sof Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & corinp-ctedAppeaLsof Village Bijwasan I.A.App. IMo. 111/2010& connecleclAppeal,sofVillage Pochanpur' . ' Page2oi'29 I' (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008 LA.APP.l 193/2008; LA.APP.l 194/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008 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-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.l241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008; LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008; LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/2008; LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; , LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009; LA.APiM36/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; r.A.APP. 162/2009; LA. APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009;

1..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; ].A.APP.404/20,10; LA.APP. 137/2009 LA.APP. 143/2009 LA.APP. 187/2009 LA.APP. 198/2009 LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.2]1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.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. 190/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; 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 '?rl-^8/20G9ti 139/2009; A.APP.144/2flQ-9tMA.APP.145/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP.201/2009; CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; LA.APP,458/2009; LA.APP.481/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.506/2009; LA.APP.510/2009; LA.APP.567/2009; LA.APP.48/2010; LA.APP.l 176/2008; (Relating 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 OH. 201J Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 .A.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE.-BIJWASAN), DliVENDERKUMAR / • Appellant Through; ,Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. No 1195/2008& connecU!dAppealsofVillage Bharthal !,A.App.IMo. 294/2010& connectodAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App i\]o. 3.11/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpu.' Pago 3 ofZ9 II r7 Advoc.ates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.R9utray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR Respondents rhrough; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sail)ayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadiiav, and Ms.NavIin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals • filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, '71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth,Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 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. 408/201.0 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/LA/I34r7dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AN13 . • lA.App. No-.1195/2C08& connectedAppealsofVillagH Bharthal LA.App. No. 29'!//010&conriHctfidAppealsof Village Bijwasan !.A.App. No. I,i:/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' '. • .l>aRe4of29 1-^ % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06 2012-J.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through; Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29,30, 33,36to 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 in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for IJOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. • 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 536/201]' LA. AFP. LA.APP. LA.APP. f A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.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. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010

396./2D10 432/2010 , 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 . 1052/2010 116/2011 , 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 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 119/20] I 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 . .App, No, 119V2008&conncctGdAppealsofVillageBharthal LA,App, No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •VApp No 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pages of 29 % (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 ,MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresent at the hearnig of 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 1ochanpuiare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'IMarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894., pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j. Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward , No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@?13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field -- with top soil) and @^12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(Avithoutop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired LA.App. No. 119S/2008&connecledAppeals.ofVillageBharthal I.A.App. No, Z9'1/20.1.08 connficledAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. m/20T0&connGctKdAppealsof VillagePochanpur , • 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, reibrences relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5, In 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, Kamataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Am\,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Fs, Special Tehslldar (Land Acquisition) & Ors.,,(2010)3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Pali!

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs: Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) 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 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors w. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003"titled as Smt Indu Khorana Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer Anr vs. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, iy\./\pp.No. .119,V?.008& connuctfidAppealsofVillage Bharthai i.A.App. No. 7.94/2010&• connncledAppeaLsofVillage Bijwasan lA.App. No. 111/20.1.0&connnctcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • . Page 7of 29 7' Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC MS-RisalSingh& Ors, Vs. UnionofIndia& Anr" 2006 (89) DPJ-,527(DB);LaiChand.vs.Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs, RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr w. SpecialTehsikiar (LandAcquisition)and Anr,,'AIR2011 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.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs, Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24,04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP No.656/2008titled as SushilKum.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 EhuleRam to. UnionofIndia,2010

(170)DLT 371. ' • b. On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was uiged 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 overaperiodof time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near futurealone. Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewan-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of•Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. No, U95/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBhar.ha! iA.App. No. 2>^^/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan •A.App.lMo.111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillaBoPochanpur ^ ' (6 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 ofVillagesBharthal,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 ol IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Ictioleum and the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in 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-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/rm.^to highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are ' ' contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate, the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of' its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of ^ Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three . villages in question was changed from agricultura! 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 lA.App. No. imSp-OOS& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal ^ lA.App^No,29/1/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan . I'^.App..No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur n n r ' LA. LA. ReddiA Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,HyderabadAOra, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby tlie Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingin view the developmentin tiie area over aperiodoftime and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe autiroritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Shaiitia.learned counsel for the appellantsupon die sevenSale Deeds ofVillagePoehanpurto highliglit ^ that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplarscannot be llirown 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 Courtin AnjaniMoluOessaivs. StateofGoa »ndAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplar,oughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants arc the compai-ablesale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circleratesfor detenriiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentofmarketvalue of the acquiredland was soughtby Mr.R.(;odara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO fates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determmedrates fixed by the Governmemtw'allotmentof alternate plotsmthe yeai.2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potent.ablyof the acquiredland, determinationof its market value is PP connnctedAppe.lsofVillagePochanpur • i <3 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalldiaor alternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO ratesofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds;- Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003dated

23.]0.2002 being flaM^ed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. A (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 Section5 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the laM> laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ^ SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of^ Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin :|.A.App.NO, 11?«/2008&connectedAppalsofVillageUharthal • A.App. fMo. ?;m/2010&connGctadAppealsofVillaBG Bljwasan .LA.App,No. 1,11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur I? case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana. Molu Dessai v^. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Siiprenie Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions shoidd be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a. certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to 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 lacper acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the la.w laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram V5. State of Haryana 2010(1) see'444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment ^ •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 w framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notifi-cationof 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 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 appellantleadevidencein respectof the /f'' amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was H amendedand the area where the land is situated, M>as • 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 Union of India and refusedto considerthe.,fact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpay for. the subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. ,2 'had also LA.App, No. 1195/2008& connccledAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App, No. 291/7.010& connncledAppealsofVillage Biiwa.san LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Papel2of29 ^9 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about t2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. ' j) The valuationof the subject land is even lower than the pre~determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into,accountthe possibilityofchange of ^ the use ofthe land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of l>yvarka 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. ignored Notificationsdated 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 ; ^'vhich 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 buildings'are to be treated as house sites. The lands yvere acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportionoj the land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

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

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof !.A.App.No. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&cohnectedAppealsof Villageliljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connoctedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Dattatray TUrthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SG 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 arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Ihus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence lor determination 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 property,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 of India and Anr.,

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SusMl Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price ma shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppeaLsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofViilagGPochanpur and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrend in the marketwouldpay suehahigherpay 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-DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of . Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin Sushi!Kumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by " Mr.SanjayPoddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectoisthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1 Apiil, 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 - thatthereis no scopefor fnrtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakingintoconsiderationtlie 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 submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,tiie evidenceon . recordand tltedecisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is thepricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling .lAApp.Na 119V2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBh.rthal pp. No, 11.1/^010&conn.clHdAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 15 of 2S -^3 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationbfthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kindof importanceor because oj its explosivepopulation;

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

(lii) possibility^ofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants of buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

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

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding I . areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersof buildings,if builton the acquired land; and

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

¶181he potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberoffactors. For the said puiposc, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for IA.A,op. IMo. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA,App. No. 7.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage BIjwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur .n y\ which the lands were sought to be acquired hut 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.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special Land AcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs, MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714'fhe legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behall of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference eithci 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 compensationon the 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 tiue that the burden ot 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 Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe-fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoiu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App. No. 1.1.S5/2008&conncctedAppoalsofVillage Bharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010&connectndAppealsofVillagB Bijwasan LA.App. No. 11.1./2010&conncclcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur (0 I "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, will he considered. Where hoM'ever there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken,' as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it. can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to.. "

¶22It 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 "It 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 normal 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 Corporation Ltd, (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for developmentin the area, and-the dem.andfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices' would be slow, steady and gradual, Mnthoutanysuddenspurts orjumps. LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connRcledAppealsofVillage Bharllial i.A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillaRC! Bijwasan l-A.App. No. in/2010gtconnectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 somepockets 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 stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a nominalrate of 1% or 2% per annum. Jlaere 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 urhan/sem.i-urbanareas 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 reasonsfor applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actuaT increase in prices, then the increase to be appliedyvoulddependupon 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 evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands 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 uptofour tofive years. Beyond that itmay be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable'.standardif the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for. determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or I.,'N.App.No. n9!j/2008 & connnctndAppealsofVillage;Bhartha! . ' LA.ApD. No. 294/2010& connnctedAppealsofVillage Eijwasan LA.App. Mo. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' 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 likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurts inprices affectingthe verystandard of increase. "

¶24'lliisCourt-is mindfulofthe dictum,ofthe Apex Courtin Hmymia StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorpwation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex CourtinHSIDC (Supra) is as under:- 'When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different si/uationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for fi)rm.ing of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation shoidd he avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

2.5. [Jndisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquiicd land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are 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 SyvamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockof land measuring18 Bighas and 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 l.A.App. No. 1.1.95/2008& connected.AppealsofVillage Bharthal l-A.App. No. 2M/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. lJ.l/20:0&connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur • ^ % n/- (Ex.PW-l/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-l/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 agriculturallands 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 aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had. agreed to pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha SM^ami 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 of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Sirigh Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters,though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No imident person having knowledge of prevailing l-A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillaRGBharthar ' ' LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&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 (.lix.PW-1/4 to li!x.PW-l/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 (l'.x.PW-1/l 1) 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 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 Ram Reddyand Ors\ V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabad and Ors., ]995 (2) SCC 305 are as under ''12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood A.App. No. .1.195/2008& connected.AppealsofVillage Bharthal A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan A.App. No. 11.1/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof Village Poclnanpur <y,

¶31or whetherit he the determinationofthe marketvahieofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with refermce to the relevant date of publicationimderSection 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 Asmall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is'no evidenceofsales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringtlie agriculturallands,developingthe same,and transferringperpetual leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-Determinedflates in determining the maitet value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in /«/ Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of •:A.App. No. 111/20.1.0(i connectedAppealsof VillaBGPochanpur Page 23 of 2S 0^ the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsinquestion. j2. Now what is requiredto be,seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the yeai 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedsenior counsel for the respondent/cross-objcctorthat even if the 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-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris morethan the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. j3. Aloresaidargumentdoes 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 beyondthat 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, hi the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate l^.App.No. 119b/2008&contiHclGdAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. IMO. 294/2010&connuclndAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the lespondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per amium, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I 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 SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ \2Vo 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 minimumpriceofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt js reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be uiban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use oi the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App. No. 119,V2d08&connected-AppealsofVillageBharthal ' ' lV\.App. No. iwrma &connoctedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan l-A.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageI'ochanpur I'age 25 of 29 -0 piesume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rathei, it emerges-from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasemprice due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSJDC)(Supra),uniformrateofcompensationdeservesto be awarded ior the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed 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 lAApp. No. 1195/2008&connGcledAppealsofVillageBharthal A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan •A.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu / would be cxpected 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 assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as in Sushil 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).

¶38I'his 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 ofthe acquiredlands in question. I'indingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation ol the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,Indian Oil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railv/ay line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NIi-8 from ShivMurti side to DwarkaSub-City,PartI and PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. What persuadesthis 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&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l-A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijv^asan lA.App. No.-111/2010&connectedAppeal.sof VillagePochanpur settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mivza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the po.i?; i.ity ofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion wou d be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a bin ding potentialityandproceedto determine its market ^>a ue taling into accountthe increasein price attributable to such buddingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe faet that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,atrd in view of the faet that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem W,th equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellatrts of Village Bhartital and v.llagcBijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in S.sk,y Hum.,-(Supra).Iam inclinedto grant IQo/. increaseover and abovethe maikctvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCbtirtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages provKlmgahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals ..e partly allowed to the extent of award",g10% increaseoverand abovethe t^arketvalueassessedby the Cfcenec Courtmmatterspertainingto Village Bharthaland Village tiwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpuratpar with the appellantsofVillageBharthalat,d VillageBijwasan.the appealsof O. .,.,1/20.10&connoclodAppc.l,,ofVillagepochanpur I-age 28 of 29 % —V the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@^16,50,000/-perJ^^^lbrthe Catcgoo' 'A' land and @?14,69.600/-per bj^fovthe "B ' lands in question. 1^^-.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, sLaiuiorybenelitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sim^/er vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, ior which periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42]he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof iiT the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb JUDGE j'.,,.c-r.-' • /S •'•-j r:i i 01 c f?""f r" I••^App. No. 1J95/2008&connnclodAppealsof VillageBharthal ' .APP. NO. 294/2010&connoctodAppealsof VillageBi wa an 'A.APP. NO. t.IV20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePchanpur * , IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SliARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B. S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.jMegi and Mr.PI.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roiit, 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 UNIONOF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Am.itaSingh, Mi-.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For corirectiofl). This is an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrectionin Orderof6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice Kga.'rtg'gTau'iMMrikvav'-" LA.App.No,1195/2008 p^gg <3^ t ofUie application.Advancecopy oftliis applicationhas alreadybeen given to remainingcounselfor the appellants. Ihe typographicalerrorpointedout by tlie respondentin the decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in paragi-aph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'perbigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis •allowed and it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragi-aph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessa,^ con-ectjonsbe,cairiedout forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb AApp.No.1195/2008 miL JUDGE Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 + LA.APP. 144/2009 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 Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA versus HARI CHAND & 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.RaghuvinderGodara, 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. ''W " Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR