Ramphal v. Union of India & Ors

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008,titled as 'Ranhir Sharma vs. Unionof India & A nr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE IN THE WGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November iS, 20}} I^rorioimced on: Janmi'v 06, 20}2 (GRJD-A) ; i.A.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA Appellant I'hrcuglr Mr.R.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.ll.SA'erma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohias. Advocate. Vlr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routrav, Mr.M.Azam Ansari. ^7 Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesii Yadav. Mr.Deepak KJiosla, Mr.Samit K.hosla and IVIr.rJhananjay Mehlawal, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate , Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocare Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.AtuI Tripathi, Advocate, Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.l'I.S.Raiuela, (vVdvocaies lor respondent in appiials filed by IJOi) versus I;NI0N ()!•• INDIA & ANR. Respondcms Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddav.Senior AiK'ooaic Mt.Saajuy Patbak, Vfr.lViohitrao ,'.'adiia\' and Ms.NavHa Kvv'airi. Ms.K.Katiniiidi Kiran. Advocates for ! ,/-vC/U()I Mr.Ajay Venr.a, Ms.Beenashaw Sorii. Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr S,K.Scihi, Mr.Pa\van Matjiur, Ivlr.Kunal S.harirjH. Advocaie for pDA I.A.APP.4:2.-'2008& .CM.No.4096/200i: (CTosSrObjectioiis).l,A.APP..452/2003; J.-'-..APP.453'2008:LA.APP.588/2()0S^ aiNo.5W20l6 (Cross-Objections): i.AAPP.69?/2008& CM.No,433/20(i->(Cross-Objc:utions):l.A.APP.7oi/2008& CM.N:>5! 0/2009 {Cross-Objeciions): !. \ APP.768'200:^; l.A.APP.770/2008, • ''..A-'p.r.c.; iy:j/r:C)0^& cot-noctcd Apppiih of Villijgf'Dhj':!i;il , N;2. /9'1/7U]U r.orilicr-.cdApp(;JlS OiVillajjcHmvcT,on I'x.Apy •'!,} "•.n'/niOJl cosnca-'d AfipcaiiofViilafic;r-ocnanpi!r , i'jko ?. oi i'9 l.,A.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2()09 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; l.A.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No:940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; .LA.APP.784/2008; LA,APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798./2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.l 795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 &. CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008: LA.APP.820/2008; I.A.Ai'P.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; l.A.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; L.A.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA,APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/20n (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); l,A.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM'.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572,/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.l 7340/2008 (Cross-Ob'icctions);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008; i .,'\.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.I048/2008& .CN4.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008; LA.APP. 1051./2008 & CM.No.l7262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.10S2.'2008; LA.APPn 053/2008 & .CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008 & CM.No.l76()/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.AiPP.1059/200S& CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); r.A.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.108L/200S & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.l7302,'2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1086,'2008 & CM,No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);I.A.APP.l687/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP,1094;'2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; ! A.APP,1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009fCro,ss-Objections);LA:APP.1108/2008 & C.vi.No.3839,'2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1109/2008; L.'\.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828,'2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1111/2008;LA.APP.1112/2008& CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.1113/2008 & CM.No.3826,'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.ll'l5;2o68; I,A.APP.1116,'2008;LA.APP.l121,'2008; L.A.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); A.APP.l 130/2008; LA.APP.l 13i,'2()0S & CM.No..566/2009 (Cross-Obicctions): LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP. 1135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); l,A.APP.n37/2008 & CM.No.1728.3/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1-140/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.lI57./200a; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774.'2009 (Cross-Objections); I,A.APP.l 159,'200S; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.H66/2008, I.A.APP.i167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; i.A..\PP.l 170,'2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.l 17272008; LA.AJPP.l173,'2008; l,A.APP.l 175/2008; L,A..APP.'1178/2008; i.-A.APP.l 17.9,'2008; .LA.APP.l 181/2008;

1.A.AP-IM182/2008; LA.APP.l )S3/2008& CM.No.6?33'2009 (Cross-Objections); i A.APP.! 184/2008; LA.APP.l 1S5'2008; LA.APP.1186/2()08& CM.No.7013/2009 Apo Mo j i ':onr!<ictc>dAppeals of Village Rhiiflhal , i./\Apo. No ^lO'V^OlO ccnnccted Appnal.sof VillageBijwasan [A.App. c0nn{!c.i.cclAppeals of Vitlago PochaiiDiii'"' ' PageZol'29 % (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008: LA.APP, 1193/2008; LA.APP.l 194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; LA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008; LA.APP.1202/2008; LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008; LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross--Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 L7\.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP.*1276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.1279/2008 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 ^ CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009: LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009 ).A.APP.136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; [A.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; i.A.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011

1.A.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2609; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; T,A.APP.489/2009; [.A.APP.494/2009; l.A.APP.507/2009; l.A.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.138/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.466/2009;' LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.13/2011: I.,A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509./2009: LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; i.A.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP.139/2009 LA. APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009; CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA:APP.51 0/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.l 176/2008; i.A.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/20()8: LA.APP.23 L'2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 I.A.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). Dl'lVLNDLlR KUMAR Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.'l omar, Mr.Virendra Singh i A./-pp. i\io 1195/^008 & conneciod Appeals of Village BharUial ' '\.App. No. 294/2010 Si connoctocl Appoal.';of Village Rijwasan (rt.ADD No l.ll//.OiOSi connuctod Appeal.? of Village PnchDnpu.' versus Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) UOI & ANR I Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadha^^and Ms.Navlin Swain,Advocates forUOl/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals • filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,'7] & 72 in appealfiled by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shai-inaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.AJ^P.56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 i.A.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 I.A.APP. 242/2010 • LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 282/20r0 LA.APP. 283/2010 i.A.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/20)0 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 ' A.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 !A.APP. 35,4/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 I.A.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 I.A.APP. 405/2010 LAAPP. 406/201.0 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 Ly\.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP.729/2010 LA.APP.750/2010 LA.APP.759/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 28672010 I-A.APP.77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 I.A.APP.75/2010& C.M.No.964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 313./2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 oss-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LTrapp 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. & 51/2010

55./2010 226/2010 18772010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/20.10 722/2010 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 AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND 1/. ^0 uyfj/ZOOS& connccUidAppealsofVillageBharltinl !^.App. Mo. corin(;cU:dAppojisof VillageBijwasan .'^.App,iMo in/ j.oiofii con;u?ct(>dAppealsof VillagePorhanpur Page A of 29 % (GRID-C) Essayed on:Decemh^r18. 2011 Pronouncedon• January 70ji I.A.APP,111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJRAMANDORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B D. Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29,30, 33,36 to 40 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.SM3. Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.xNo.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr^RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant lii R-22) versus union of INDIA& ANR Through; . , . Respondents Mr.Sanjay.Poddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NaviinSwain.Advocates for (JOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates lorDDA. LA.APP. l.A.APF». LA.APP. LA.APP. I-A.APP. I^A.APP. LA.APP. r.A AI'P. I.A.API>. I.A.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. I-A.APP, KA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/201] 536/2011 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. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2'010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/201 1 525/2011 554/2011 IP AppealsofVillagoPochanour la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. l.A.APP. la.app. la.app 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/2011 591/201 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 '393/2010 412/2010 434,/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522,/2011 535/201 1 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. Pages of 29 (Relating to Notification No, F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued underSection4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) COR AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing ot these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoHjlcationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of IS"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of ihe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pcitaining to vast tract of agricullurai land in one compact bJock comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3• Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002"2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@?13.82 lacs per acre for I^lock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil).

¶4r3issatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired IA.App. No. 21S)lj/i'0U8a connoctedAppeals.of VillageBhartfia! I.A Aor. Nn. ?9'iA'^010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwDsan i.A,App,No.ni/2i)10&cor.np.ctfidAppealsofVillcigePochanpiir • w agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ^15.00 lacs per acre for the I appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

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

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

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

(D) through LRs V5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia &. Ann, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Bass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCAl'J:; 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCA1J-. 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) n see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors V5. State of Haryana iS: Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Sntt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficercS Anr'vs.M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) / SCC 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineerj •A App. t^c. Kt connpctodAppealsofVtllagfi.Bhiirilia' " '- ../v.App,ra). 79i/;.OlO& conncctRdAppealsofVillageBijwasan A.App. No 131/2010 cbnnoctijdAppoalsof v'illagePochanpur PapG7of29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 1] SCC \7,5, RisalSingh& Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs.Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RanteshhhaiJivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr.. AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008;Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRamvs. UnionofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strength of the alorcsaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned arguing counsel tor 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 apei-iod of time and the same cannotbe liinitedto the near fuliirealone.

¶7[t, was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Toniar,counsel for appellantsrhat De!hi-Rewari-.Iodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividing it into two parts, I.e., on the easternsideofthe railway line is the tGI Airport,New Delhi IA.Aop. ivio. ni;ei/20ca&coiint?(;ifldAppealsofVillageBhariha! No .!iM/2010& connoc'.tdAppealsofVillagsBijwasan •AApp.iMo cnnnt'Ctc'cJAppfiaisofVillaHfiPociiyncur ^ and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Mui]ti towardsDwarkaSub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions;(i) Northeasternside, where IGI Airportis located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension ol IGI Aiiport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredmthe year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. 'Attentionwas drawnto theah sizras/nvApto highlightthatthe boundary 01 Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in tJie light of its.locationand has illegally u-eated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16'" October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages ,n question was changed from agriculturar to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24"^ October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the ReferenceCourt by relying upon P. Rama •• II 1/^010 connpclodAppealsofVillafiepochilnpiir Pago.9of29 .CC 305. "h,ch h» ^ c«« in i.s late, »»o" " ^ <CTO ,n v,=w .h. d,v.l"p"",i" ^ wmc cannot be limited to anear t^mre alone and if ai^er the on ifthe.".hoH"eado no. p"..,.e,."d" an, >.», it would".t mean thatthereis no buildingpotentiality,

¶10Relianeewa. plaeed ,,y Mr.BD.Sh.ma.learnedconnael for tl,e Wc ant, uponti, aevenSale Deed,ofVillagePoehanpurto higtiigt, ^atjte.alepn.erefleetedthereinvar.edfr."^52 l«=, to.62lae.and ...uae of the said ^own on."^ b.-^causcTf 'hal diese sale exemplarsare overvalued •xa se ofrany spec.al advantagesand as per settled legal proposition '^y.the Apex Court in

(2010) 13 srr 7in ti, • t ^Oa , ' ' ^ exempiai^iouglitto be represent,ngthe market priecot,".|."d whieb eomes to f57 2Z Z"'r Rcf. r'"™°"°''' "'™'""re. reliance placed by the Ucnce our',upon the minimumrates/circleratesibr detenninin.the -'•ket valueofthe aequiredland is patentlyerroneous • ^. A^essmentofmarketvalue of the acquiredland was sought bv -ates t,xed -by the Government and also on the basts of • determined rates fixed by the r^n • • Piot, in .be .ear2""" 2,", . •"°'™ *'»- of .be acnired'lanTdC 1 irea iand, deiermrnationof its m'^rVf^i " i • Page10 of29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on! the basis of the Pre-DetenninedRates(PDRs)as referredto above.[

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-hTipulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugned judgmenton the following grounds:- a) Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated ^3.]0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) , . • I h) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates,ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laid _ down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'hle Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar.2010(3)see 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landiinderacquisition. e) Does nor deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin I/^.App. Jl'J'./a00S&ci)nnc!c'.(;dAppRalsoi VillageUfinrthiil ,.!o. ?<J4/2(no&connoct^dAppealsofVilldgeIJijwasan iA./sop No, ni,'2010& wnn-icUidAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pa8ollof29 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 .highestof the exemplars and not by averagingof.differenttypes of ja/ej transactions should be' considered while adjudicatingupon compensationuponbcertanland. j) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis much higherthan 1") lac per acre in BlockAand^13,36.000in BlockBin violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court /T Haryana 2010(1) " 7^- « consequence, the; impugnedjudgment •reused to return an actualfinding on the issue No 1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and BhartKal was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesofDelhi State he masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential commercial and other permissibleuses. It is also pertinentto mentionthat the appeLantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"'amendment oj^ tl-ie Constitutionof India. w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A. bv virtue oj which the Municipal Corporation Act M'as amendedand the area where the land is situated was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor . was electedfrom there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. uni t 3467 Ranvir Singh and Anr V5, Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the develonmentin the area has adirect affect on the price that a. JliZ pu!chaserwouldpayfor thesiihjeciland. ') Respondent No. '2 had also IaaL" OfViNas.Bhartha, Pf. No. 111/2010&connocindAppealsofVillagePocf,3np.,.r auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. \ j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. . | k) Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial poten tiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to be used for building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near future. "

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details, have been provided with a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of !.A,App, No. 119^/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lA.App. No. ?94/?.010&! connfictftdAppealsof VillageBijwasiiti lA.App. No, 3]l/2niO& connoctociAppealsofVillagePochanpur - Pagel3of29 i uibanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapi!Mehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union of India Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, Reserved Auction Rates,of the area are relevantto determinethe market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value o\ the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation leflcctingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence Ibr determinationof the market value unless and until the same is propelly connected with the land in question and clement of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been 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 i',s. Union ofIndia and Ann,

(2009).15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.{)9.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in ashortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for ;5Lich sharp mcrease are explained by producingin evidence the seller l-A.App No. iiy^/2008&connectedAppealsof Villageeharthal IA.App. No. 794/7.010&connfictedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App conneciodAppealsofVill5f?ePochanpur Page M of 29 and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang] Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DctermmedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decisionof Apcx^ Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis CourtmSushifKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by • Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in, Smhil Kumar (supra) appreciation@1G% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scopefor flirtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by.the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RcfercnccCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be' broughtin line while granting appreciation @10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue o( Ihe comparablelandis thepricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling |A.AppNo.i,;w;™^c"""octMAppealsofVill=B.ljh,,,h.,, ' ' - . •API- .Jo .I./^CinaconnectedAppealsof v'ii;aBePochar.pur " - ^ Page15of29 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing v^dth the questionofpotentialvalue ofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs, \state ofHaryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 ir) these words:- "(i) the situationoftiae acquiredlandvis-a-vis'the cityor the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any other kindof importanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

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

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity ofthe acquired land;

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

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few, " 1b. Ihe potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for bujldingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. For the said purpose, the Couit may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for IA.Apo. No. 119r)/?.0()8& conncclodAppealsof VillageBhurlhal lA.App, (\)o I'Hp.OlO connocii;dAppealsof Village;Bijwasan ' • lA.App.Wo, 3H/201Q& conpect(iCiAppc>aisof VillagePochonpur ' Papg i6of29 which the lands were sought Lo be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observbd by the Apex Court in Avinash(supra).While reiteratingthe relevant'factorsfor determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)tjiat the.exemplars-ofsmall pieces ofland relied upon by the appellantscould not be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepiecesof land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs, M,K. RafiqSaheby (2011) 7SCC

¶714Ihe legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behaJf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquiied the' agriculturalland lor a particularpurpose. But, it is equall}^ true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awaided is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Couri in Kimn Tandon(Supra)can be rcfeiTedto with advantage,

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc, had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent obsci-vationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- !v\.Aop.^0.1.IS5/2008&conncctndAppoalsof VillageBhartha! 1A.App. No. 294/?010&conncctfidAppoaisof VillageI3ijw?san lA.App.Ko.11.1/2010&connecfodAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pago 17 of 29 "The legal position is that even where '^there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bpna fide transaction, will he considered. Where however there, are several sales ofsimilar larids whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to.. "

¶2211 would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching obser/ations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighhorhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place betM'een a M'illing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as. agreed between reasonable prudent persons, acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determinethe nnarketvalue of the acquu'edlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends'on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would 'be' slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. ' iA.App.Nc. 3;?5/200S & connpcted AppealsofVillagcBharlliai ' iA.App fJcv. & conncjctRd'\ppe;ils of Village Uijwascin [A.App-No 3]l/2'01Cli!iconnoctedAppe.ilsofVillagePocharpor • * - .'''PagelSofZS ' I • * On the otherhand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe developmentis faster, where the deniandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalationsin prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreperyear, duringthe nineties. On the otherextreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any •clevelopmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated foryearsor rose marginallyatanominalrate ofI%or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban , areas and increasesin market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldatbestbe onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nweties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. Normally, recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe market^value by providingappropriateescalationover the ptovedmarket value a] nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sate transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelandsin the neighbourhood.The said method is rea.sonablysafe where the, ralied-on-sale. iransactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by onlyafew years, that is iiptofour tofiveyears. Beyond that It may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardifthe qap is only a few year.,, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the.gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired,in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or I. Mpp. No. tl^.'Voof?&connfictsdAppealsof Village;Bharthai lA.Apo.Wo 'WOlOJi corrncttidAppealsofVillagoEijwasan r-Jo. connectodAppealsofVillagePochanp'!!' t > I I acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls..This is because, over the course of years,'the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergodrastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard

¶24]his CourtIS mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtinHaryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods-.What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- •Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different si!nationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided andauniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthesamenotification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied •upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpun i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwamiSatsang Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at aprice which variedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. -6. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Kx,PW-l/4to Hx.PW-i/lO)which are basicallybetweenone set ofco-ownersand Radha SwarniSatsang. Beasmrespectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe con-ectmarketvalueof the iandin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidemly, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds IA.App, No. 1195/:>008Scon.u.ctod-AppealsofVillageBharthal •App. iMj. 111/^010h. connoctodAppealsof VillagePochanpur (Bx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies trom ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereb}', the entire larici of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence.toestablishthe advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is acking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to. Ex.PW-1/10)has not been •brought out as the purchaser/vendceof these agriculturalland has not been got ex amined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got exajnined, dien it could have been elicitediTom him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swomi Eatsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25*'^ was also subjectmatterin FA. App. No. 266/2008titledas March, 200C Jai Singh V5. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011•and in LA. App. No. 999/20:0 titled as Raj Singh Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisionsjthe sale exemplarofVillage Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthai the same cannotbe ti*eated as rcpresenta^tiveprice for the acquiredlands. instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence red lands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their. lius, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not

¶27In the vvas changed that the acqu acquisition. developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing I.A.Aop.No. 1195/2008 & connec W.App. No. 294/2010 & connect lA-App. No. 111/2010 & connecU od Appeals of VillafseRharlhal cd Appealsof VillageQljwasan d Appealsof VillagePochanpur Pngf! 7.1of 29 market price of the land in question would p:iy such a high price unless and until sucl' purchase is meant for-special consideration and so, in the considered opinion, of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (]*^X.PW-l/4 to ltx.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale-exemplar of Village Samallcha (Bx.PW-1/11) I relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant pricc of "?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'^ January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Hx.PW-]/ll) was le National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed vendor had sold not only the land but the,structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in situated on t (nx.PW-l/ll) question.

¶29Left wi situated lands whether adop h no sale exemplars disclosing'realistic price of similarly in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as 1,o ' I ion of L& DO circular-rates for the developed lands and I^re-Determined Rates for the alternate plots' by the DD,A ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30- Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted b} Apex Court in its decision reportcd'as P, Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., \995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. IJowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvakte of the acquired land with buildingpotentialityM-'ith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ojplots in a well developed,layout in the neighborhood \ / IA.App. No. ]lf]r>/2008&conncrtodApptialsofVillageBhgrlhal I.A.App.Nc. 294/;i01.0&connccleriiAppnalsofVillagoBijwasan 1A.App. Nc.1.11//OlO cannoctcd Appealsof VillaBO Pochanpiir PnRG 22 of 29 ' !• or whet^aerit he the determinationofthe marketvahieofthe acquire^land with buildingpotentialitywith reference'to thepric^fetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitahlefor the Court tofind out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any oftheparties, with referenceto theprice M'hich t\).eplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliminary notification under Section of the Act. Further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by the scales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquirediands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of piihlicalionunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put^andincreaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto he macjs available in that regard. A small percentage increase^ to be given shall not exceed 1/5th of the market value the land found out according to its actual user since re-sort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such htlildingpotentiality arises only when there is no evidenceof^ales 6j buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicatingthat there-, was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land."

¶31In view the DDA after .ofthe difficultiesin adoptionol rate of land charged by acquiringthe agricultura)lands,vdevelopingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in L(d Chand (Supia),held tliat it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Prc-Detcrmined Rates in determining the market value of tlie adjoining undt^veloped freehold lanos. I'ollowing the dietuniiof Ln! Chand(Supra),a coordinateBench oi'^this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kmar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua 'the, developedlands as being not relevanti'or assessingthe marketvalue of' \ppeaK of VillygpBharllial Jpeals of Village:Bijwasan peals of VillagePochanpur IA.App. No..n9!,/?.008 & conntjclod , I.A.App.No. ?5M/201.0& connnctod A iA.App.No. & conneclod A PnRp 23 of 29 A the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for'alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agriculturallands in question.

¶32Now wh'di is requiredto be seen is whether progressiveincrease method wou.d be relevant criteria for assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhiletaldnginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-L It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senicr counsel for the respondcnt/cross-objectorthat even if the the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is talcen from the escalation at year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e.' for the period intervening the for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant or developmentof Dwai'kaPhase-II,still the price fixed by uisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is Notification Notification : the Land Acc and therefor unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), cautioningth6 Courts to adopt progressive iicrease method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land"only when the gap is ol 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, e-^'en if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a leliablestandp'd,ifthe gap is otonly oi a few years,may bccomeunsafe and unreliabLjstandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantease, the gap between Phase-II is of mode of de :he two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phase~I and Dwarka sixteenyears and therefore^it would be unsafc;loadopt the ermining the market value by providing appropriate i:/\.App.1^0. T19!3/2008& connticiodAppealsofVillageBhartha' lA.App.No. &conncctedAppealsof VillagoBijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connt!ctL'dAppealsof VillagePoclianpuT Page 2'1 of 29 escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearb}'land ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Smjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwaiTanted as a cooidinatc ^ench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @10% per annum. Alter having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher of the acqyired land over and above the market value yy the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying potentiality determined upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per the matter, t annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of re cross-objectionsof the respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now minimum pi is reasonabl what is to be seen is whether adoption ol* Oovernment's ice of the agriculturalland in D.elhi, by the ReferenceCourt criteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the RefeienceCourt from the date of fixationol the,minimumprice for the agricultural and by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April,2000 till the date of. Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining io the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsol for appellantsbccaiiscthe acquired land had ccascd to be an agricutural land by virtue of Notificationof 24''' Ociober, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three"villagesin question to be urban. It is tr.iethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994 iJic land use ol the acquiredland had changedbiit that by itselfis not sufficientto IA.A?p.Wo. n95/2dc«&connectodAppenlsofVillageBharthai " ' U App. No. iy-i/aoio&, connccifidAppealsof VillageBtjw'asan '.A.App.No. J1,3,7.0.10&connnclodApppalsof Village;Pochanpur . I-aBe25or29 jA.App. IA-App. lA.App. presume thai; the acquired lands-had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and around'theacquiredlands in question, i^ot only this, even the ;sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Salsang,Beai heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe said lan^dswas for agriculturalpiiVpose. it emerges from the evidence on' record that till the otificationunder Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired land? upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands 6n othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeed appellantscannotrely upon the salelof the land in Village Pocianpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-l/l1) without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialiiyofthe sale exemplarso^Radha SwamISatsang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamallilta(Ex.PW-l/l1) arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samal^dta (Ex, PW-l/11) cannot be'treated to be suflleient higher compensationwhile relying upon tiic aforesaid Therefore, in view of ^die afore-referreddictum of the Haryana State hidcmriat DevelopmentCorporation •|i), uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notilleationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in I5elh., which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher, potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what'' No. &connocindApf|eaisofVillagePochanpu, • •• ^^336 26 0(2.9

¶37Rather, issuance of N ground to gran •sale instances. Apex Court in (Supi would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown. Government's minimum agricultural price has .been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumai' and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases c^f Jai (Supra) and SushilKumar (Supra).

¶38This C the matters riglitly rcliec acquired lane Bharat Peu'o Bharthal sine What persuac value of the ourt is of the considered view that the Reference Court in pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the actjuired lands in question, landing of the Reference Court in matter of X-^illageBharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exem.plarsis borne out from the evidence on mcord. But I fmd that the aspect of higher potentialityof the Is being in close vicinity of the IGT Airport, Indian Oil and cum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village there being a 100 meters ^'ide road starting from NM-S from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part 1and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of tfe acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court."In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aloresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly I assumehigher buildingpotentialitybeihg in vicinity.pfDv/arkaPhasc-J. es this Court to grant increase over and above market acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account"of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the 1/.Atp. No. ft conncciedAppealsof VillagtiBharlhal lA.App, No. 294/2010& connecledAppealsofVillageBijwasan IA^App. No; 111/7.010& connecteidAppoylsofVillafjcPoctianpur Pago Z.7of 29 f settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NausherwaiiKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, In thesewords:- "Whei;i once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up ' buddii^gsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion wouM be sufficientto hold that the •acquired land had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto'determineits market value takinginto accountthe ificreasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fabt that it would be very difficuUto providea definitevalu,; qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan n^vei be achieved in the matters ot assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instanicases, whichpersuadesmo to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum . prices lor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquiredjands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurarc treated at par with thei|- counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and •Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar(Supr|),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCoun in these mattersj on account of the aforesmd locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentiality,n the acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals arc' partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and above the marketvalueassessedby the RofcrcnceCourt in matterspertainingto, Village Bharthaland Village Bijwasan,Whi etreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof •,.7 •—corinocicd AppealsofVillageBharthal '..App.No. Jt)10&conricclcdAppealsofVillageBijwasiin • •' PP-No. 111/201Ca connectedAopcalsofVillagePochanpur Pago 23 of 29 . } the appellan.s of Village Pochanpur are also -allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the nfiai'lcetvalue of the acquiredlands ofthese three villages Category 'A' lands in ques in questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perjiLghafor the land and @?14,69,600/-per bmha for the Category 'B' ion. \ V'

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgraenl.reported Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,excepttor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, Jor which per:odofdelay no intereston tlae enhancedcompensationshall be paid, l-heseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts. ^ I

¶421he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction, to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eifperside withthe Registrar .Cjcneralof this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be according]}prepared. January 06, 2 pkb. D12 lAApp.No. 1195/2008&cbnnoclcdAppealsofVillage!Bharthal iA.App.No. 204/2010&connccledAppoalsofVillageBijwasan lA.ApprNo.111/2010&connnctodAppealsofVillagePochanpur (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE V- .'-Is f''' I r}. I r •^ "^/ 1% ' ( I Pago 29 of 29 I j IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT' NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 % RANBIRSHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mi\AmitMa'an,Mi-JaiPrakash, • Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Toraar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.PI.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Rouiray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mi.H.S.Rautela, (Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI), ! Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus C.M. Appl. ^ ORDER

12.01.2012 o, 752/2012 (For correction). UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay PathaJc,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mi-.S.K.S'sthi,Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.BanlceyBihari Sharma. Mr.Kunal Shanmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. COIMM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR This is an application for seeking typographical conrection in Orderof 6"^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App^No.1195/2008 Page 1 8?' • % ofthe appljication.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas ah'eadybeen givento re:nainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision o.. 6 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is' not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph ao: 40 of liA.App:No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsi^e carriedout forthwith. \v ofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof In vie^ JANUARY pi<.b 12,2012 L GAUR) JUDGE lAApp.No.1-195/2008 Page 2

* % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 226/2010 RAMPHAL Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSinghAdvocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38,41-46, 49,50-69, 73,75, 76) versus UOl & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. r. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR