Durga & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm /O * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludament Rp<;prvedOn: 19'' At}nu-;t.2011 % . j ^ w LJ^ Lr ^ U. mL judgment Delivered On: 19^^ September, 2011 + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH UOI & ANOTHER Nawani, Kaomud AN _ , ••• Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.IMann,Advocate IMr.DeepakKhosia, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. Is. " . ••• Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate & Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K i Kiran, Advocates for R-1 D- + LA.APP. 961/2010, . No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100 LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA. LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM 7/2010 & CM No.15181/2011 ^PP. 1010/2010, LA.APp! 1036/2010&CM No.12865/2011,LA.APP 5/2011 LA APP 5/2011 & CM No.6756/20il, LA.APP 38/20li & CM ^°:6740/2011,LA.APP. 41/2011,LA.APP. 89/2011,LA.A^ 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2011 LA APP Whm] VilTnn 247/2011,' LA.APp' 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. LA.APP. 347/2011, U.APP LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP 1-A.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15 09 7nnn ^ Award No, 06/2002-2003,Viilage-BhalswaJahangi^Purlj Ah D LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatteL Page 1 of22 !! + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, 1, LA.APP, 243/2011, 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011 LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.l LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011 LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. dated

30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi lage-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) ADEEP NANDRAJOG local papers may be aliowed r or not? CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PR

¶1Wlietiner the Reporters of to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporte , 3. Whetherthe judgment should be reportedvin the Digest? i i PRADEEPIMANDRAIOG.L |

¶11proceed with an apologyto the reader by referringto a notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir learned counsel for arguments with respect to the 30int of time then to a t of time; but the reason is that land owners had addressed notification issued later and had required price to be suitabjly reduced pertaining to the notificationwhich was issued earlierin pointoftime.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswajahaifigirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 2 of22 iini' to a notification dated

15.09 2000 issued under Section 4 of tine Land AcquisitionAct 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Reliabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market value of the acquired land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ^13.82 k/alue as of 15.09,2000 was fixed 5sessment made by Land owners sought reference under lakhs per acre i.e. fair market; at^l3.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Raj Sinah ]/s. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or ?14,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well a s the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the. acquired land, adopted the minimum price f6r agriculturalland fixed by the Government as on 01.04.2000, notified vide Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destina iions were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition compensation, did not grants Collector, while assessing ppreciation for the period from

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @12% per annum with referenceto the base date 1.4.2000and the price^3.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010& coniiectedinati:(:ers Pages of22

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring^ 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of by a declaration under Section .1998. After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001,' whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,33,333 per .bigha which is equivalentto m.20 lakhs per acre. ,

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land owners sought reference under JJ Cluster', This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisition Acquisition Collector, the land Section.18 of the Act. The l.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/2008 titled Chandrawati !/?. Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair marketvalue of the acquired land at m,46,670/- per, acre. The differencei in the destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the .the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. lollector adopting the land rate with effect from

1.4.1997 vide Ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998and the learned Reference @ 11% per a'nnum for Court granting enhancement interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment m LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmat i/veli as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference ers' (i:. :1 Court by way of the appeals above.

¶8On behalf of Icind owners,. justifying higher compensation, reliance wcis placed on following documentary evidence:-

(a) The rate notified b dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by be close to village Bhala at.?5830/- per square rr acre it was urgeo

(b) The rate charged commercial plot in Sanja terms of the Resolutior and cross objections mentioned y the L&DO vide notification libit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in residential commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential land iri Azadpur, which is stated to swa jahangir Purl, was fixed eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of ?1,17,96,200/- per acre. by MCD for allotment of f Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby. MCD decided to allot developed plots to the square meter Exhi Resolution l\Io,610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ f4,500/- per sqt transporters @ T425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.Np.999/2010 & connected mat :ers Page 5 of22 /•rfi-documents, learned counsel for land owners argued that rate stated in the • resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, " market value of developed )7/- per acre and it was urged ion is made on account of the )r undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to ?8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be ?24,76,592/-per acre

(c) Learned counsel,, for land owners also placed reliance on the auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying on the brochure of DDA pertaining to the year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in JahangirPurl at a price lakh to T28.4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of counsel urged, that Id be effected therefrom d agricultural land.

(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 bigha was sold

(a) f=3|2,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes would evidence that fai land comes to ?17,19,85 that even if 50% deducti development costs, fo ranging between ^23.7: according to. learned col n4,36,36,363 per acre suitable deduction col pertaining to undevelope to ?56,93,163/- or ?11,£ 6,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmat;ers Page 6.of 22

¶9contended that this sale after making a reas w /I deed should be relied upon, 5onable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. Another-sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpurwas sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of?26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned .counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w be sold on 05.08.1996 ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a hereunder land was agreed to ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged; that the land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of land in the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay . appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2: in village Bhalswa Jahangir ^1,40,000 and urged that ever is to be given-on said value, notification under Section 4 co thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would date of the agreement to sell ^oddar learned .senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of I if 12% appreciation per annum the price as on the date of the mes to ^,94,782 per bigha, and price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or. to adopt the price of developed liand for LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatiers p^gg7of22 fi?! © fixing market value of undeveloped agricultural land having a'vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition C hiarket value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 and Court.

¶10It may. be noted that wh above captidned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA appeals and' learned seni submitted that in response counsel for the. land owners advanced on earlier oc response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa jahangir Purl has come-outin the depositionof Shri Thlok ChandiHalqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5 Union of India \n whirh he h area while proving the Al<s Si. jahangir Purl. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated, in 3llector has assessed fair price much higher than the one so has the learned Reference en judgment was. reserved in the 19"^^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition App.No.266/2008 titled laiSinah 1/5. UO!.& Ann m which similar arguments as were advanced with rsspect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant Dr counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to arguments of learned the arguments which he had asion may be treated as his as explained the topology of the, ra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa 'ould reveal that village Kadipur he North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burariare situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadii and Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puri. West and villages Bharola and* n the South of village Jahangir ,;LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedniatters • .'ll 1

¶12I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory j of Delhi, published by Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on.the eastern side of G.T.Karnai Road i.e. NationalHighwayNo.l. N^illagesBadii, Samaipur,Libaspur, l<hera Kalan, Alipur, IviamoorDur(Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.!.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangirPuri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to. urbanization was of a weak village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due nature. In the dedsion reported as Amar Sinoh Vs. Union nf India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81. resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c

¶76It has to be remembered were also for re-settlement of.:

¶14The decision in LA.App.^ Ann which was reserved on it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had if emergency i.e. the year 1975-that the two subject acquisitions ;lum and J.J.Clusters.

0.266/2008 lai Sinah Vs. UO! &

12.8.2011 had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, whein instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in io revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Bawana, I had noted t Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters •constituted a 'V at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. 1\1H-1 and Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point,, proceeding in different directions, at Sa.bzi iviandi. It needs to be highlightedthat village BhaiswaJahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesciidand as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1.

¶15In the, appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land fferent notifications issued from notifications issued in the year In those cases, learned counsel were acquired pursuant to di time to time I had dealt with 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) and sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for reliance upon as noted in sufc In the said judgment dated 2 two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced here

21., The first argument , deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh per the former, fair m£ comes to ?26.75 lakhs ?63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected ,the evidence to determine agricultural lands, for all reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale land owners have placed -para (d) of para 8 hereinabove.

3.8.2011, I have discarded these is recorded in paragraphs 21 to under:- is predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4.2001. As rket value for the former per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable fair market rvalue of the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was js trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had'stated that to his knowledge,tl]ie land was purchased for religiouspurposeand was being used for a religious purpose. The sale dee d Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters been held not to be reii fair marl<et value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization" as per ister Annie, the secretary of :hat the organization had to pay the price for the said piece of land as it was the site size suitable for nization and is being used .e. there was -a special o the vendee. sions reported as 1995 (1) only plot of the requ requirement.of the orga for destitute women circumstance, personal t

¶22As held in the dec see 111 Land Acouisition Officer Eluru & Ors. 1/9. isti Rohini&Anr. (Refetipara 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 jviohd. Raufuddin Vs, Land Acquisition Offirpr (Refer para 13) sale tr sale, deed which are ten of Section 51A of the L, ipso facto treated as c determine the market v reason there may which have led the buye true test is the price wP ansactions evidenced in a dered in evidence by virtue A.Act 1894 have not to be n exemplar sale deed to aiue of land in an area for be special circumstances •to pay a higher price. The ich a well informed willing would pay to an esqually well informed seller ....4.1 ^ special :y to buy a particular pieice .yer would be one who has . has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair marl<etvalue of the lands in the area. 1would be failing if I do not highlightthat the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20 5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertainingto the notificationdated

27.1.2003 where-underagricultural land in villaqe without being , influe circumstances or the fan of land. An.informed bL studied the market and Rajapur Kalan, was sold agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. ^17,74,109/- per acre as -against th ^63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre, for Ex.PV LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatte by an agriculturist to an e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 V-1/3. The 2 sale deeds rs ,-"1 Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from t le reasoning of the learned ^Qf^rence Court, with which I concur, afore-noted 5bove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisitionis of such large an area, it would make all the more a reasons in para a reasons to . hold that advisably not be gooc market value of subjec reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the wv,iiiy (since, deceased) thru / highlighted that the sale had purchased 8 bigha land for expansion of it ignored by the learnec ect on sale deeds having — transaction bejng the result of a fancy of the buyerj. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by iearned counsel Stn.l.S.Daliiya 3eing the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA,App.l^o.l93/2006 Prat^n <;innh Rs l/s. UO! & Or.'^. It was ^deed,therein by which L&T and 9 biswa of agricultural s factory which had been . - Reference Court on ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein, could not be treated as ,a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th market value. The argur le instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair lent ignores the reasoning ir-. +-1-,^ ^ • r LIIC icasuiimy mthe decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to -<R 4-U n»:. r-» . ... ' 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed onBench, did not accept the ' its own logic as indicative therein was reduced by ^ iwyiv-lllUH.,aLIVC of the market value, but found that if the price 1/3''^ the price arrived at would be the same as would be price arrivedat with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union o|f India i.e. the saie deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters produced by the Govern tl,3:7,000/-. per bigha which L&T had purchas ment were giving a price of sale deed under 2d the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ?2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ^2,15,1.60/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'' would , be: deducted froni the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 1993 a Section 4, of the Land ),600/-.. It may further be said judgment the year of id notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995

16.11.1995 Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other, w meaningfully. It is not ords, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but that the Court treated sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. 1 would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already contradiction in the vali the 2 sale deeds and th noted inherent le of the land price as per ,..s itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."

¶16For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa jahangir Puri.

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalswajahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ^18 lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16, bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at as,70,000/-;

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^5,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters difficult to comprelnend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8,4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ns lal<hs per acre and 7 to ?15.7 lakhs per acre. I ne years down the line the price fell 2d to highlight that in paragraph of its decision, the • learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op special considerations n informed willing buyer , without being influenced by particular land, and had thus

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 paid by a buyer smitten with ned that the said price was for 3t the price settled between an an informed willing seller special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my -decision dated 008 jai Sinoh l/s. UOl & Ann i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller being well-informed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be|goodevidenceto determinefair, market value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reiterate the same. -

¶20As regards.auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandh Transport IMagar, I do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counselfor the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned ReferenceCourt containedin paragraphs 29 anid 30 which are premisedon the decisionof the SupremeCourt/reportedas LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769, Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots or flats by

¶21In my decision dated evidence relating to auction rates ODA. :3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh Vs. UOi & Ors.. I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Ciourt in Lai Chands case, with reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DOA ar eveloped plots were allotted by id DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in iaiSinah's case are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai render this evidence as the value of land in the s

¶30It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area isidential Scheme developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same oer which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which most unreliable to determine jbject cases. as held even by the learned with development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela ResidentialSpheme,the subjectlands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would |be the value to which the building potentiality woulld translate itself.

¶31I hold that the learrjiedReferenceCo.urt, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the SupremeCourt in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence; as reliable. On the issue of potentialityrelating itsel" to the value, 1promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while 1 shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chancfs case (supra) .the I • • • Supreme Court held that such raw data was rheaningless and was too. inchoate wherefroi crystallized.

¶23, I reiterate the reasoning allotted developed plots in Sa price at which DDA sold dev n fair market value couid be reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I r village . Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil and Burari are separated by t towards Mubarka Chowk .frc colony adjoining the famous to hold that price at which MCD ijay Gandhi Transport Nagar and eloped plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lease-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically' discussed discarded with where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with referenceto L&DO rates noting that Iam concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topologyof th(i area and as per the testimony of Trilok.Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008it emerges that village Burari is on the east of and indeed the plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri he outer ring road as we travel m Tibetan Re-settlement Surudwara jviajriu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'OuterRing Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters •ffFi thus the fair market value of two villages would be compar

¶26While assessing the fair •in village Burari, which was s dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, land on a particular date in the able. market value of the land situated cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of nad considered material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a, batch of.lA./^ppeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. l/s. Union of India ^ Qrs^ In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land at^ll,60 notification dated

24.7.1998. d assessed the fair market value

580.82 per acre for Category A land, no,44,522,73 per acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464.65per acre for Category C land pertainingto the The land acquired pursuant to notification dated 18.07.200^ had been assessed by me at ?19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland,and ^17,28,512/-per acre for Category B land. Ir fai: Singh'scase {supra), I had assessed the fair market value , S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre) 1-Pooth Khurd

7.8 2000 n4.75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 ^4.75

¶3Bawana

7.8. 2000 ^4.75 for Category 'A' n4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.9 . .2000 .^4.835 for .Category 'A' m.46413 for Category 'B' EA.App.No.999/2010& coimectedmatters Mi. ^ .5. Narela

2.5 .2001 ?16.165 , for Category 'A' ?15.76087 for Category 'B' •

¶6Holambi Kalan 22, 8.2001 ^6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶7Alipur

¶228.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 i i i ^

16.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

22.18.2001 , i • • n6.745 for Category 'A' .^16.43811 for Category 'B' -10. Sanoth

7.12.2001 ^7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 T18.655

¶14Alipur.

23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶15Sanoth

¶27j

1.2003 n9.435 for Category 'A' ?18.94:912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Ka an

27.: L.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ?18.47539 for Category 'C

27.' In lai Singh's case (su minimum land rates enhance to time, and found the same LA.App.No,999/2010& cojmected.matte pra) i.had also:; analyzed minimum land rates enhanced by the Governnhentfrom time not to be the ipse dixit of the rs tTTT Government officers and had found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah I/5. UP! & Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. IJOI. ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinoh Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 'Mahender Sinah V'^. UP! & O/:?. derided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determinedon variousdates betweenthe years 1993 to 1996 and in relationto the minimum pricefixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under;- .

¶50The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from •time to time by the Governmentof IMCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bing out two very importantfacts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990minimum price was ?4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997i.e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054%increase in 7 years and the average price increa rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years as of

1.4.2001. , It. sh between the year 199C sharply and good corrot be the decision of the Ga/rafs case (supra), wf above.

¶51I need to elaborate decision in Gairai's ca se would be 16.436%. The price r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e. Dws that due to urbanization, and 1997 prices grows fairly orative evidence for this would Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 a little more with respect to the se. Discussing evidence pertaining to fair markeit value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras'9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters ITli Court discussed valuation on basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigationfacilities and thus' capitalized the land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwardsthe Courtdiscupedthe.matterwith referenceto land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to ^10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court theh considered.the prices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76ll21/-per acre for Category 'A' lands and_ ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as aga as of 1.4.1997 at ?10 lal< highlighting that the pric that the potentiality had been Government issued on w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions inst the minimum price notified :hs per acre, sale instances were 2 was ^10,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in MchenderSinah's case, pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31^ of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court Which was projecting residential, commercial industrial future exploitation of agriculturalland in Delhijand on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting la potentiality, the same h nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with concerned, virtually no^ c which Division Bench was evelopment had itaken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential, para 49 above there is As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in. Gairaj's case LA.App.No;999/20r0 & connectedmatters 4'llX of se highlight that potentiality reality between 1990 and 1997 about

16.5% per annum d potentiality did not translate ntum and the acceleration fell to Mahender Singh's • ca translated itself into a when prices rose by thereafter extende with the requisite mome between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial indusjtrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evic ence in the instant case, apart from the 2.sale deeds reilied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some referet|ces in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court: has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of tl]ie date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the. fair market value |of agricultural lands would be ^19,16,040/-per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for ^5,39,690/-and ^=70,160/-was paid as stamp duty would mean that f6,09,850/- spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2 {T5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were rice^l7,74,109/- per acre as of

0.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogentevidenceplaced on record by either parties other than t^ Government from time to t e minimum price notified by the ime, I hold that Learned ReifeienceCourt has rightly adopted the correct principleand has relied upon the correctevidenceand has given the correct appreciationsby suitablyincreasingthe price to make up the intGriegnumperiod between the dates when minimum prices were notified and, the date cjf the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 21 of 22, Section 4 of tlie Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to furtlier enlnance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cross objections,whetherfiled by the land owners or the Union of India.

¶29I leave the parties to bear their own cost. SEPTEIN^BER19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010& coiinectedmatti;ers • Q (1 (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-42 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 163/2011 DURGA & ORS Appellants Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathal<, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG