Rajender Singh v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India &Anr.'. JANUARY 06,2012 pkb JNIL GAUR) JUDGE / IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT' NEW DELHI ' Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.Alf.l 195/2008O^ILLAGE-BIMRTHAL) RANBIR. SI-IARA4A Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit iMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita I • Maan,Mx.R.S.Verma,Mr.JitinTewathia,Advocates : Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. ; Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. ' i Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate I Mr.T\.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate' I Mr.S.K.RoutandMr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, ! Advocates. ' i' Iv-Ir-PankajVivek, Advocate ] Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosia I and Mr.DhananjayMehlav/at,Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiiir, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.R.autela, (y\dvocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus LJNIOT^^ OF INDIA & ANR. Appellant Respondents •through: Mi\SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay I Pathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain, I Ms.K.KaurnudiKiran,Advocatesfor LAC/UOI I Mr.AjayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.Mukesh I Kumar,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, ^4r,Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA LA.APP|.4]2/2008 & CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.y\PP.452/2008; La.API|453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& C:M:Nb.5990/2010(Cross-Objections)- LA.APPj.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APp;768/2008; LA.APP.770/200H; i.A.A|5p.Ni). l.iy,S/2C08|&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 1(X.App. Mo. ?.9'V?010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan IA.App. No. l:l.l/?.030& conneclsdAppealsofVlllaBc;Pochanpijr Page 1 o1 zn LA.APP..771/2008& CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections)-LA.APP.772/'?008-CMNo^^n™^^&CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& 1A (Cross-Objections); LA.APB.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP1777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008& CM.Ko.940/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No|15/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP;799/2008 & CM No 931/2009 ^'^•APP;805C008; LAAPP.806/2008;LA.APP.8I3/2008& CM.NoJ795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.80S/2009 STppfe«S«' LA.APP1819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; ' LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APPV832/2008; LA APP 833/2008' LA.APR^44/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APP.8'h/2008& CM.No779/2011 ; Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.NO.799/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV LA.APP.90./2008;LA.APP.9,5/2008;Li.APR95Srt TA (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008-LA APp'?7r/90ns (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008;' LA.APR?76/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP;.986/2008 & CM.No572/2009 (Cioss-OJjjections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.17340/2008 1A°Ann 031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Obiections)- ^^tpp CM.No.599/2009(CrosslObjections);LA.APP.1046/2008 ^ CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Obiectionsv' IIaPp! 5^2008f (C."ss-Obiec,io"s);L^aTpP^Ss; Ar»T» I CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-ObjectionsVLAAPP 10^9/'^nnR* CMN^o'lSrrr «^';!°-^'«2009(cLs-ObjeLns);^A.APPfo54;2to8^ MS ^'^Al^P.SoXfM^S.t LATpp.sroUa'p^'oSoircM^ p::=: ^=Ei33 &^cSf2448/7m LA.APP.1086/2008 (Cross-Objections);LaXpR10937S;'A CMn738So9^C (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1108/2008A ^A.APP.110?,/2008;LA.APP.1110/2008& CMN03S1-S? LA.APP.1111/2008;LA.AfP.1112/2008& ..4.NO3831/.009(Qoss-Objections);LA.APP.1111/2008& CM No 3826/200Q (Cioss-Objections);LA.APP.1115/2008;LA.APPJllil6/2008* LAAPP 119 tHiilEiHSI liis iifss I . ; 1A..AppNo.UTO8&coU^^^ i.A.A.c,p..Mo. »4/20:l.0a corinoctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ' -/>.App.NC. .lu/20,10&connuaedAppealiofVillagePochanpur Page 2 0( 29, % p-oss-qbjections);LA.APP.l190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008-IAAPP noo/onnQ r'a194/2008; LA.APP.l195/2008; LA App'i197/2008 CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Obiections)-'LA APP'1200/2008 ''''''''' la.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/Ss"LAAPP 12??2008 CM No 1-?-23/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& AA ItZlfZlZ i^n../\rr.:iL/ZVUJ, LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP37/2009-r A app •:!Q/onnn Si=Sii«sS iiiS SiiS S H= -A.APP.I62,2009, LA.APP.187/2009; LA APP i90/2009-LA.APP.1197/2009; LA.AP?.m,2009l LA.APp-f99^9 LA.APR202/2009;LA.APP.203/2009;LA.APP.208/2009& (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009& CMNo 970/7011 iss 'S Hi (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA APP245/2009- /^"6/2009 •LA.APP.2^9/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP2^009 LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009;LA.APP447/2009-LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA APP 480/2009-LA,APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP491/2009-LA.APP,494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA APP 503/^009-LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP509/2009-LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP 5?3/2009-LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP^S/SOIO LA.APP.4Q4/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; LA.APP.1138/2008-' LA.APP.11:77/2008;LA.APP.-1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 No-F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13 12 2000 : (grid-b) LA.APP. 14-5/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.A.PP.481/2009 .LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 - LA.APP.5 10/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP, 117672008 I • Re^rved on: Decp.mhpr08. 2011 ; Pronouncedon: January 06. 2012 I- .LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEVENDERKUMAR , " - I T-u , . - Appellant j-Through; -Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh I^.APP NO. 119V2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal i I w"'f^ ccnnpctGdAppealsofVillageBIjwasan t-App.No. connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ; Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Ro'utray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR 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. 152/2010 i56/2010 i100/2010 1242/2010 1282/2010 1287/2010 1295/2010 1346/2010 350/2010 1354/2010 i365/2010 1360/2010 1405/2010 i409/2010 1723/2010 1727/2010 750/2010 1964/2010 ;77/2010 '75/2010 & / Respondents Through: INdr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.SolanJki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routi-ay,Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. . Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma., Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mir.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forDDA. : , 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. 11/2010 53/2010 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. la.App. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. la.App. LA.APP. 49/2010 54/2010 59/2010 223/2010 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 725/2010 731/2010 764/2010 364/2010 99/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 22672010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&'B|/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-12003;VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND IA.App. No. 1195/2008Si connectedAppealsot VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 29,4/;'.oaC&|Conni:ctedAppealsofVillageDijwasan . i.A.App. No.'.111/2010&iconnectedAppealsofVillagePochanour % (GWD-C) Resarved on: Dp.r.pmber IR. 7011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2017 LA.APP,111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR};; SEHAJRam AIvID ors. ; Through: ..... Appellants Mr.B.D.Shamia,Mr.S.K.Solaiildand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23.:to26, 29,30, 33,36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 |to71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.!61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) : versus UNIONQFINDIA& ANR ' Through: N Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOL-TLAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.$omerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. ' 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.AI^P. 111/2010 1^0/2010 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 476/201 ] 523^2011 536bon 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 • 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 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 IAA 1, fa connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •IP- "• •'^1/2010 &connectHdAppealscfVillagepochanpur 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 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. 156/2010 215/2010 •250/2010 270/2010 306/2010

393./2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010

657../20I0 758/2010

918./2010 64/2011 119/20J1 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 Pages of 2n (Relating: to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award Np. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,:VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: ' HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR i I [ ORDER I :

06.01.2012 : :

¶1Since-the groundson which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the-appellants in these bunch (|'f appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learnedcounsel;for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificatiQnNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417,dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages iBharthal, Bijwasan and Iochanpuiare beingdisposedofby this commquorder.

¶2Accjuisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Demi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13'' December-, 2000 under Section 4. of the Land. Acquisi'.ionAct, 1894, pertammg|to vast tract of agricultural laiid in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates incliidingvillages in question, i.e.,Bhartljal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. ! ' r-.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstpod acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., Awarp No.26/2002-2003;Awaxd No.;28/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting compensation lacs per acre fbr •Block 'A' ,(level field-with top soil) and @f12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(jwithoutop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired . i i I.A.APP. Kio. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. No. 294/20i0&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ' I.A.App.No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ ; . , , agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned ! j Judgmenthad enhanced compensation@i^|5.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Blpck 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, I I referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave,beendismissed. ' I ' ' •

¶5In: these appeals,further enhancementof compensationsoughtby the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees Fiftylacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate ofRupeesThirtylacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions! in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246; AnjaniMoluDess.aivs. State of Goa andAm.,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsilddr(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 See 661; RanvirSingh andAnr, vs. Union ofIndiaAIR 2005 Se'3467;ChindhaFakiraPatil

(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand Ac^-uisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, ij 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased)through LRs v^;. Union ofIndia <& Ann, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) jSCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. State ofMaharashtra,(2009) 11 sec 1171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana&Anr, (2008)2SCC 568; W.pi.(C)No. 4143/2003-tided as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand'AcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs., M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) J I 7see 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, ' ' I lA.Apn No. :119.V2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal lA.Api:. No. 1<)'1/2QXQ& connectHdAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. in/20,10& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page7of 29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001' SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation, (2010) 11 SCO 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769;' General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC1745; ValUyammaland Anr w. SpecialTehsildar ' «• (Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 |SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 145; Mahesh I " ' • Dattatrdy Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; I Kapil Mehra (Major General) &. Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(201'!)DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/200,7titled as Surat Singh V5. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash,(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; I Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2(jl1; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titledias Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. UnionofIndia,2010

(170) DLT 371. I

¶6On. the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urg9d Mi-.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 adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over a periodof time and.the same cannot be limited to the nea:rfuture alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway lane of Village Biijwasan passes throughthe land of VillageBharthal,;dividingit into t\vo parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,Nev/ Delhi u/-\./',pp.No. 1.195/2008St pnnected AppealsofVillage Bharthal IA.App. No. 391/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan lA.App. No. ni/2010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur i • Page8of "Jg and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NI-I-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarkaSub-Cit}^ Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI,Airportis located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarm''Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Sarnalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanl|ilearnedcounselfor the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas firsr acquiredfor the extension of IGI ;Aiiport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of iPhase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the ah sizras/mdcpto highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous. !

¶8Itwas strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has jifailed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally;treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages ,in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be mral in viewoftheNotificationof24"' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtM^o Notificationshave been wrongly discardedby the Reference Court' by relying upon P. Rama lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connected'AtspeaisofVillageBharthal "..A.App.Wo. 29'!/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan U.App. Wo. 111/V.oio&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • ' • • • PaBG9of29 Redcli& Ors. V5. LandAcquisitionOfficer,HyderabadS: Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredb}^ the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over a period of time and the same camiot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,if the authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthereisno buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,:learned counsel for the appellants:upon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and meiely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale'exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluiDessaivs. State of Goa andAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageoflsaleexemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the l^d which comes to ^57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates for deteraiiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellants''onthe basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also' on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotment of alternate plots mtheyear 2000-2001.Keepingin viewth^ location,situationand potentiality:of the acquired land, determinatioifof its market value is I-A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 7.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur sought,on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis'ofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or: oh the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

¶12In :the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited ofLA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the lx)llowing grounds:- ' a) ignores the achwwledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petitiomNo.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination.of 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 GovernmentgfNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laid. down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more i.ecent decisions oj the Hon'ble' Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3^SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfadiors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value,ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the laM> establishedby the Hon'bleSuprem.eCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The ^'Jon'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowing.higherrate shouldnot be disregardedin lAApp.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal • i>\.Abp.No, ^94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageUijwasan ./••App. No. 113/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur P^ga 11 of 29 , case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averagingofdifferent t]pes of sales transactions should he\ considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certanland. f Relied upon judgment dated :3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the marketvalue ofthe subject landwhile igjwringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis muchhigherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockA and ^13,36,000in BlockB in violation of the law laid down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State ofHary^ana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment . refused to return an actualfinding on the issiie No.l •framed on 27.2.2007. '' g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the , land use of Village Dhool Siras.- and Bharthal M>as changedand these areas ceasedto-be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. ,The mqsterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor •land use change show that in fdture land can be subjected to residential, comm'ercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"" amendment of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f-1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the, land-is situated, yvas deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was electedfrom, there. No Panchayatelections were held in the area. h) \Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme , \Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia .andrefusedto considerthefact that the developm.entin the area has a directeffect on the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur " ! auctionedsimilarlysituatedland'mcommercialblocks at the rate ofabout ^2.6 lakh and concludedtMt the ' saidLandis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe subjectlandis even lowerthan the pre-detenninedauction rates set by^-RespondentNo 2 Jor similarly situated land. k) Does not tak into accountthepossibilityofchangeof je use ofthe landalthoughthe landwas acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II It is Bhaithal was changedand these-c»eas ceased to be fPoemState boundaries I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24 101994 although they clearly establish the commercial whth f t " for ^h ch land ,S acquired is a relevantfactor. While the fact tr Zmn^ ''^''dingpotentialityto be used needstoZMZlZ. m) The presence ofa number of buildings on the lands occupiJdi te uildings are to be treatedas house'sites. The lands hZle .i^l T-consideredas house site the adjoininglands have the potentialof beingputin betteruseashousesitesin theZarfZe"

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and ^ofaers of LA. App. No, 347/2009,tlie factualdetailshave been providedwithaprayerthat th-appellantsofthis appeal be treatedat par withfe eo-appella"tsof th» otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals. M. Sttpplentemingthe aforesaidargu.nentsadv.mcedon behalfofthe appellairts,,t|wasurgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof 'AAipNo'm/SLr pp. NO. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur mbaniza.tionofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDaltatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR.2009 SC 223.8;KapilMehra(MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia &'Am, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DetermiitedRates, ReservedAuctionRates of the area are relevantto determinethe market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale nistancesreheduponby the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting^just, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin'theseappeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby tJie:Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certifiedcopy of the Sale Deed is an adi^issibieevidencebut tlie same cannotbe\aj.enas relevantevidence for determinationof the mariset value unles| and until the same is properly connectedwith the land in question!and elementof special fancy ofthe purchaserand other factorsnam'ely.nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sal,einstancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have besin illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DR.) 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India. (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia andAnn, (-009) 15 $CC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SushilKumai-vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat shaipincrease >n price in shortperiodcannotbe taiiento be realisticuntilreasonsfor such sharp increaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.App.No. 294A010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App.No. 1.1,1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pa}^ such a higher pay as reflected in the saleinstance 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-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which ;has been followed by a coordinateBench of this Court inSushilKumar (supra)and Raj Singh (supra). I

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is'concerned,it was urged by ' f Mr.San]ay Poddar, learned senior counsel Ipr the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice of the agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1^^ April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously , determined by the Reference Court, as iin Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per aiinum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed b}' the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto consideratidnthe appreciation@12?/o per annum and the same deservesto be brpught in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per armum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and,upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the-decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe true marketvalue of the comparablelandis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto av/illing LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof Villageaharthal ' LA.Aop. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l^.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePoc'hanpur Pa{'el5of29 seller and the best evidence is tlie comparable sale instances. While dealing,with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof; stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho bA vs. State ofHaiyana& Ora., 2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords:- '

(i)• the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation; \

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

(iii) possibility)ofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland; ' Vi

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;'

(v) existence, of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidmtialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityoftM&acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres,,or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land \which may become availableto the occupiersofbwlSngs,ifbuilton the acquiredland;and \ :

(vii), landsaroundthe acquiredlandmthe acquiredland ; itself being in demandfor building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶18Thepotentialityoflandfor the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon alarge numberof factors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for AApp. Mu. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharlhal U.,,pp.rsio. ?3A/20W&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i-A.App No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur fi—V which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so obsbri/edby the Apex Court in Avmash {s\xx)m)..Whilereiteratingthe releyantfactors for detemiination of compensationfor acquiredlands,it has been held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsmall pieces ofland relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepiecesof landwere not available.

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

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalfof the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference either in'location, situation or potentiality'of the villages, which are / similarlyIsituated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future .prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land. , ' •

¶20It is a. well establishedproposition|of law that the burden of provingthe true marketvalue of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can bePreferredto with advantage.

¶21Apex CourtinValliyammal(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 iimproper. The pertinent .observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjmiMolu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App No, 3195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. L'.94/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i i l.A.App.rjo..1.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i t ' • rag© 1/ or 29 "Th^ 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 be considered. Where however th^re are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be takenl as representing the marketprice. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are with referenceto dissimilarlands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. " \

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note of the clinching obsei'vations pertaining to determinationof fair market ratp 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 transactionsproximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lantds.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 reasonableprudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. " '

¶23Principlesto detemiinethe marketvakje of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Nkt^ralGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- i J "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land 'jri the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity', increase in prices would \be slow, steady and gradual,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. i.A.App. Mo. J3.95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal \ LA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan '• W.App. No. IJ1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ Page18 of 29 On th& other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a Imuch 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 extrem.e, in remote rural areas where there. Waj, no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers,, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. •There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands, in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value cf lands in the rural areas. There.fore if the increase \ in market value in urban/semi-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^/o to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the .general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absencedf clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices: Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the; actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliediwoulddependupon the same. . i I Normally,recourseis taken to the mode of determiningthe marketvalue by providingappropriate]escalationover the provedmarketvalue of nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparable 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 it. may be unsafe, even if it relates tc) a. neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandai^dHfthe gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe m.arket-value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or I •i ' ' ''i' ' i.A.App.Mo. ii«5/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal "i lA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan • Lft-.App. IMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years,\the ^ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drasticcjiangeapartfrom, the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaiyingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease." i '

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCouifin Haryana ' ^ I i'" StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation'(ESIDQ(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods.What was saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is.as under:- "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or landswith different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential 'layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthesamenotification." I

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale|exemplars in and around . acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village iBijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitaiysaleExemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Villa^ Pochanpur at aprice whichvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre. • • 26. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-^1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetween|one set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beasmrespectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand (5 BiswassitiialedmVillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof the landmthe villagesin questionis the mootiqiiestionwhich is required to be ansAyered. Evidently,aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds l-A.App.No 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan i-A.App.No. ill/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (Ex.PAV-1/4to Ex.PW-l/iO)indicatethat itS;pricevaries from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby,ithe entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to ExlpW-l/lO)did not command I the same marketprice.It was dependentupon'thenatureand situationof tlie aforesaid lands. Evidence to establisl,!the advantagesattached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacldng.Therefore,thesesaleexemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for tlie acqilh-edlands mquestion. The special need of the purchaser of tliese agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to! Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brouglitout as tire purchaser/vendeeof thesejiagriculmraland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid;saleexemplar'sbeen got examined, then it could have been elicitedfi-om him as to why he had agreedto pay suchahigh price for these lands. Tire special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beasvfhohad purchasedmore than:33 Bigiias of land at an exorbitanrprice in VillageMamurpurvideSale Deed executedon 25"' iVlarch,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jm Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA, App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village IMamurpui-was discardedwhileholdingthat^e same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.: •

¶27In the instantmatters,thoughthe land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuch priorto theiracquisition,ijut ithas come in evidence thatthe acquiredlandswere beingu.sedfor agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developedlands. No prudent person having;taowledgeof prevaihng LA,/\pp, No. ..195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' -'.pp. No. 2J4/2010&conndctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ^A.App. No, ui/lQia&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur market price of the land m 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 (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. '

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitantprice of ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^^ January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11)was I ^ situated on the National Highway - 8 arid because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon includingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,larie, 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 whetheradoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and I Pre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determinethe true market value'of the acquired lands in question. i '•

¶30Parametersgoverningfixationofmarketvalue ofacquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. Mam Reddyand I r ' Oi's. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad'• Urban Deyelopment AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under;- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthelacquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referencetq the pricefetchedby saleofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tfie neighborhood lA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectGdAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur # orwhetherit be the determinationofthe.marlzetvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialilywith referenceto thepricefetchedby sale,ofbuildingploisin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplotsin the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,witlireferenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotifipationunder Section 4(-l) oj the Act. Further,whereno evideiaceofpricefetched by the sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then M^hat couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference toUhe relevant date of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasput and,increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard 'A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th ofthe market value ofthe landfound out accordingto its actual user since resort to the method ofgivingincreasedvalue for sue_ ^uj ing potentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in th^, neighborhoodof he acquiredland indicatingthat there -.yas no immediate W ' ' 'ffo'-'nedin the

¶31In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionpf:rateofland chargedby the DDA afteracquiringthe agiiculturallandsldevelopingthe same,and transferringpetpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chant, (Supra),held that it is not saffe or advisableto fely upon the allotment rates/Pre-Determmedfetes in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped fi-eehold lands. Following^the dictum of Ul Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Courtin JaiSingh (Supra) and SmhU Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueof I lAApp. Nc. 1195/2008&connectodAppealsofVillapeBharth.l La:apT AppealsofVillageBIjwasan , ' pp. No. 11V2010& connected/>ppealsofVillagePochanpur ; the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA ratesfor allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DetemiinedRates fof alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is jwhetherprogressiveincrease methodwould be relevantcriteriafor asseissingthe marketvalue ofthe land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland,othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounselfor the respondent/qrdss-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10%jpor annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for:the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPli^ase-II,stillthe pricefixed by I the LandAcquisitionCollectoris more thanthe aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted jby the Reference Court is unjustified. j I

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentQ'f the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 )[earsand beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a leliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafe and.unreliablestandardwhere the gap is lai-gSr. In the instantcase, the , gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwaticaPhase-Iaiid Dwarlca Phase-IIIS ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the marl^et value| by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur i Page-24 of 29 ^ . escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the i. respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that jlhe Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum,•w;hich is unwaiTanted as a coordinatebench of this Court in Sushil\Kumar(Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After haying perused the decision in c>ushilKumar (Supra), I fmd that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value I determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted'by the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annumcannotbe reducedto 10%-perannum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed. I

¶35Now what is to be seen is whetheir"adoptionof Government's mmimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi;by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe inelrketvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof \2% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof,;theminimumprice foi" the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. il"f;April,2000 till the date of <• Notrficationm the instantappeals deserves'tobe further increasedor not. 1;

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimumratesof agriculturalland pertammg to the Notificationin 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 urban.It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthatby itselfis not sufficientto I.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal i l-A.App,No. 294/2010&connectcdAppealsofVillageBljwasan ' ' LA.App. No. 111/2010&c6nnectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' 1' piesume that the acquired lands had gained potentiaHty for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lacldngon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas 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 increasein pricedue to higherdemand,on'accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on oth(?rsale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe.land in VillagePochanpurto arehgiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur'and the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot ^b^ 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 mHaryam State Industrial^developmentCorporation (aS'/DC;(Supra),uniform,rate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which -generally factors in the rise ^of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that tliere is a gap between what lA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connsctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 7.6 of 29 would be expectedto be the market growth and what the market had I actuallygrown, Government'smimmumagriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingtheim.arketvalue of the acquired lands in JaiSingh(Supra)as well as inSusMlKumar(Supra)andIfmd no reasonto take adifferentviewthan the one whichhad beentaken by coordmate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh

(Supm)andSmsMIKumar(Suprsi).

¶38This Court is ofthe consideredview that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has lightly relied upon the Govermnent'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin close vicinityofthe Airport,IndianOil and BharatPetroleumDepots and of Railwayline passingthrough Village Bharthal and there,beinga 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PaijtIand PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there' bMng Farm Houses in the vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinioniofthis Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis:Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above.market value of the acquired lands as assessed ty the Reference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the lAApp. |\Jo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan , '• LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur settled legal position aptly highlightedby the.Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SQC 238, in these words:- I ' "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland beingsusedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be. sufficientto hold that the acquired land had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentiality. " '

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would tje veiy difficultto provide a definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achievedin the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants;of Village Bhaithal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relyingjupon the decisionin Sushil Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10%!increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin th|e acquiredlandsin question. I

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding:10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Yilkge Bharthal and Village Bijwasan:Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appeals of I •' r' LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connGctedAppealsof VillageBharthal' • '' LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan , l.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i the appellants of 'Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent hidicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these three villagesin questionis determined@?1.6,50,000/- the Categoiy A land and @^14,69,600/-per :i3.i^'afor the Category 'B' lands in question. ,

¶41On the aforesaid enliancement in' the compensation awarded, statutor}'^benefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor'the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid.Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid tenns with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby'eitherside withthe Registrar General ofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. ; January 06, 2012 pkb ITV.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE ' po..t ^ I i i / • IN THE HIGH CODRT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 | ^ ™RSHARMA i . Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.K;.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates | Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas,Advocate.; Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate A^.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,A^r.B.K.Rqutray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar,iAdvocatefor •Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mi-.B.D.Sharma,Mr.SiK.'Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates I versus UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. ' i Through: ;Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, ^.BanlceyBihariSharnia,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR I ORDER •

12.01.2012 CM. Appl.No. innrni ffor anrrppfinnl Iliis IS an applicationfor seekingtypdgraphicalcorrectionin Orderof6"'January,2012. Counselappearingfor the appellantsihave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 ^ ^ =^^^=£=-5=0:2=53^™. i ' Pagel .x#- ' "X'" v«- . <y ofthe apph"cation..Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6^^ January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This i^ not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe reference!to, 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12,2012 pkb I 'si JUBGE LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

% + % M IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 215/2010 Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 RAJENDER SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61,64,65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR