Man Singh v. UOI & Ors

ORDER

06.02.2012 C.M.No. 2282/2012 (restoration of appeal) Notice. Mr.S.K.Pathak, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 accept notice of· this application. F or the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the appeal of the appellant is restored to its original position. CM stands disposed of. LA.App. No. 118/2011 Learned counsel for the appellant states that the fate of this appeal seeking compensation of his 'A' category land would be governed by the decision of this Court in LA.App. No. 119512008, titled as Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr., decided on 6th JanuarY,2012. Learned counsel for respondents do not dispute it. LA. APP. No. 118/2011 Page 1 @ r ~~ <' U I i~ ",----' '-..; '\---- ~- @ In terms of the decision of this Court in LA.App. No. 1195/2008, titled as Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr., decided on 6th January, 2012, this appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 16,50,0001-per acre for the acquisition of his land in category 'A'. On the aforesaid compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI, 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted. The appellant would be entitled to proportionate costs. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. FEBRUARY 06, 2012 pkb LA. APP. No. 118/2011 NIL GAUR) JUDGE Page 2 o r- \ ~\ * IN I'BE JfHGH COURT OF DKUHfI AT NKVV UELHlf ~! ,f; lit;$.~-'-~~_Qn:.NQYJ~wb([_L8L_Z(JJ.. ! Prol'1ouncecl on: Januarv 06 20!;; """'---'--'-_.-.• _.- -- _._, ._ •••. , ___ ""' ___ ..... _____ .'.1.. __ ..• ,,". __ • (GRID-A) LA.APP.1195i2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANB1R SHARMA ..... Appellant Thrcugh:Mr.B.S.Maan, .Mr.I\mit.Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash,l\1s,SmiLa Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates 1VIr.Anand Yadav and MS.Anita Tomar, Advocates, 1\1r.Robra[:), AdYocate, Mr.Raghu'ViIEic:r Godara., Advocate '-' ~) Mr.N.~.N~gi and l'\/ir.H.S,Rautela, Advocate versus MLS.K.Roui and Mr.B.K,Routray, Mr.IVLAzam AnsarI. Advocates, .Mr.PankaJ VlVek, A(h1ocate lVlr.R[:~jcsh Yndav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and l\i!r.Dhani1l~jay t,/[Chlawai, Advocates M·, fl··S I" ·'l" Il (:I v ," ~.-t,,:· L 1 ........ aute ,., n,_lvUC21 e; M', I ." I)' I.'!,· A !\'ni~ 'L', • 1. .0. .lll)-J,. C, ,-,.al,; l\1r.Sande~p Tha.khur, Advocate Mr.Atul Triparbi Ad·"iocale. jI.·l N' S 'N:" .' "d"l "{r I'·r C' '1') t'lr (\ 1. , ." .. ' "C r .tV X.1 .. '.' t.,gl a,l .'1:". .,':t .. \.au t. (t, \/I.(lv'\)Cdll..., A()t respondent in appi;als filed by LiOJ) l:"1ION ()F INDIA & ANR. p "t.:r'l'l"'l1"lY·" ........ \ .. e, .. .I)\U l ,', ,[,., 'j'hruugh: TVi" ~a'lJ'c ",., v'' n (\( 11 !,(". 1.;'\'1"1 j I )1' j.\ ,rl, '(""",'," \7I,lj·jl··l :\;/1 t \.; c· ! ." i ,'I".

¶1• U.l . j -' -" '-: {.\ ~ I .• , . \ . , . _1 f ~ 110.. 1..4. -'" ... \ ... \ • '_.' ~I. ~.i ~) D"t11al; I\/l'r' I\\/J{)·:·J·j'·t',,;(, ····'l'j·I·)··I':· ·I'·l··ll r\;!I'r.··'\J,;·,\,l:l·ll ""\"1'[1"

¶1Ci..l. ,.;> ".' .1 ...... (" .1 c .... j. ,I .. I!'I... l. ... " L r .. J.' oJ • .1 (...,... ....)" (. .• c, ]\/1 l/f"-, )·I'·Ir~\". r, II I in"".".", t7~"·1 1\""!'lJ'--)T J 'ls.'>. . .I.'l.aUJ.1H,ll \.1, dll. , ... 0\ ,<-ale) .. 1...'. ".~\."! \., I 1\1' A' . '\ ! 0.1''''1 ' ~ ,i ,'J .. " ~., I ~. ," " IV'I,' 1\1' I- '",I lV 1.1,\Iay V,v,.lLd"Yl::i.bt,Cl1a::iletVv ~()Lil. 11,. Lhc.,.>.1 K.umar, Mf S.K, SethL IV(r.P::l\VUn IVlathuL !\.tlr.l<" unal 0\ A . ,. ")1)1 " 1arma, i\d'\,'ol':a[c ref 1. , \ i./\./\PP.4J:::/=~008 & Cl\f.No -::~o'-J()nUOS (Cross·,Obj ectiollS). f .:\./\PP .'15:Y:~O():~; "

1.\ .'\.nD [i<':··~.r!\')(iQ· i A ''''TJl) ,,'opi)()(,?;: 1', ("'\,1;'1, q)9()"~ll\ln (", .. <;,., ... ,,~ , ...... ,:) . . I~. ; •••. 1>..11.1'.)_ ......... ,t1 , L.d\ . .L·-~ • .i. .-.)0\)/.:.....\ .J.,J .r.\:.: ....... ,HI.i·it! ••. ) I \ /,;.....\... ... \., , .......... 0::; ... , \.)OJL . ..( .... I.lCJ!L.1/,- i ,/\.APP .697/2008 & Cl\/1.NoAJ3/2UWi (Cl;Jss--Objcctions): T .;\.!\j\P. 70 1 noes & "-'~JN' ')'(I'-'{)(O 'CU'" C)'-;"i '1'" )' \ ,\ pn 7;:Q,'·'()'O. 1\' '\I"p"'7n rJ(\{J'-': ' .. ,,1.1 .),1 .. ,-:'\ 1.-' {"')SOJ- ,1..'.:\"ct.'.)I.:,.... ' .. ' .. ,'.,!. ,(rI,."., (I"" 1 .... ./".1, .1 \'. _ /' O. i/ . .J\;:-:p. i\(). 11~)!J/~~oo.~ & COPllccted ,\pP(~t;!S of\/i!lclf,C Bhllnhal : ·\,/\un. i\l:: i9(l!70}'(} ~~. G)I"lllecl,ed /\pp(:·]ls or· Villag{~ Bi.!Wi.l~,tl'n \ :\.I\pp i\(J. :;,..1:1/:)010 & (onrwcv:a /\ppS3:~ of \ljllag(~ PocManplir PJf.t' :1,0; :;,:0 I~ rf '- I , . i: 1,:- l!. I ~ :" ~ ... ~~, .c:..r.. L L ~ I i," '~l' :!;' , - /-, LA.APP.77J!2008 & CM.No:425/2009 (Cross-O~icctions); LA.APP.772/2008; \ LA.APP.77312008 & CM.No.3835!2009(Cross-Objections); LAAPP.77412008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections):, LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; ·LA.APP.777/2008; LAAPP.78~/2008&· CM.No.94012009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.78312008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LAAPP.798.12008 & . CM.No.61S/2009 (Cross-·Objections); LA .. APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009· (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.80512008; LAAPP.80672008; LA.APP.81312008' & CM.No.1795/2009 (CJ;'oss-Obje~tions); LAAPP.814/2008· & - CM.No.80612009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LAAPP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LAAPP.829/2008; LAAPP.83'012008; LAAPP.83212008; LA.APP.83311008; LA.APP.844/2008; LAAPP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.77L)/2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.892/2008 & CM.No.799!2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.899/2008; LA.APP.90V2008; -LlLAPP.91512008; LA.APP.951/2008 & eM.No.709/2009 (Cross-ObjeCtions): LA.APP,959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.97412008 & CM.No.519!2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/.2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LAAPP.978/200S; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572.12009 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP,993l200g;LA.APP.l 029/2008& eM.No.] 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections): LAAPP.l 03,1/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1046/2008; LA .. APP, 1 047/2008;LA.APP.l 048120U8& CM.No.78S1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420i2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I050/2008; LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No.] 7262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l052l2008; LA.APP.l0S3/2008 & CM.No,416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP.10S4!2008 & C1YI.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objec,tions):, L~\,APP.1 05S/2008;LA.APP.l 057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LkAPP.l058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I059/200S & C~/1.No.17259/2008(Cross-Obje\;tions); Ll'u\PP.l 060/2008;LA.APP.l 062/2008 & CM.No.S46/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I073/2008; LAAPP.I074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I075/2008; LAAPP.l 081/200~ & ·CM,No.462/2009(Cross-Objections): . . LA.APP.I084/2008& CM.No.17302/2(J0R (Cros:;-Objcctions); LA.APP.lm:6l 200g & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Oojectiol1s): LA:APP.1 087/2008& CM.No,6J9/2.009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008; /\.App_ J 094/2008; LA.APP.l09512008; T-AAPP.I103.12008 & CM.No.4~1/2009 (Cross-Objections):LA.APP.1108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.IIQ9/2008: LL\..APP.1110!2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.] 111i2008; LAAPP.1112!2008 & r'M 1\.) "8"] 17 ()09' (C' Ob' t·· -: I .\ t PP j 1 1"" /')' )/)0 &- C"" A iT "IJ"I( '2" (0 l, .1'0 .. ) J ~_. ..10SS- ~ec Ions). L,f,.,-\. . .!. _~ILt vO :. .,1VJ.J\iO .. )()~.). \1)7 fC'oss-Objections); LA.APP.l1lS/2008; IAiAPP,1116/2008; L\.APP.112112008; LA.APP. j 126/2008; LA.APP.1129l200x& CTvi.No.5.50/2009 (Cross-ObjCC.lioli~); .f j\./\PP, 1 i 30/2008; LA.APP.II3 ti200t; &Cl.'vU~o .. 566/20()9 (Cross-Obiectionsj: - . . LAAPP.l133/2008; LAAPP.1135l2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-ObjectIons); LA.APP.1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2003 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.] 140/2008; LAAPP.1156/2008; LA.APP.11 ~7!2008; LA.APPJ 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.1159l2008; L\.APP.116112008; LA.APP.l16(j/200g; LA.APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LAAPP.1168/2008; LAAPP.1170/2008; LA.APP.1171l2008; LA.APP.1172l2008; LA.A.PP.l173/2008; LA.APP.117512008; LAAPP.Il78/2008; L.A . .i\PP.1 17912008; LA.APP_l1 81 12008;

1.J\.APP.1182/2008; LAAPP.1183i2008& Clvl.No.69J3l2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.II84/2008; LA.APP.1185'2008; LA.APP.1186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 11\.i\pp. ~Jo. l 195/2()08 8. connected Appeal, of Villolge Bhartho\l I.A /\pP. No. i911/2010 & con"ected /\ppeals of Villa'ge l3ijwashn U\.App. No'. :111j;!OlO e, connc~Cle8 Appeals of Villag,~ PochallPur' . Page I: of 29 i i i I , r,'" ,. i' \ r:-j I ~ , " l1. l i" (!{; (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1.191/2008; LAAPP.1192/2008: LAAPP.1193/2008; LAAPP.1194/2008; LAPlYP: 1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008; , ' ,I .LA.APP.1198120Q8& CM·.No.6935L2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008; LA.APP.1202/2008; LA.APP.1203i2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP.121112008; LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.12p/2008; lA.APP.1223/2008; LAAPP.1225/2008& CM.No.695712009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LAAPP.124112008& CM.No.384112009 (Cross-Objeqtions); LA.APP.1243/2008; LAAPP.1252/2008;

1.,!\.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.12~6/2008; LA.APP.127712008; LAAPP.1279/2008; LAAPP.1280/2008; LAAPP.12S1/2008; LA.APP.128312008; LA.APP.1284/2008; LA.APP.3112009; LAAPP.33/2009: \ LAAPP.3712009; LAAPP.39/2009; LA.APP.4212009 & CM.No:.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.74/2009; LI\.APP.79/2009; LAAPP.95/~009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 0812009; LA.APP.I09/2009; LA.APP.12112009; LA.APP.135/2009; LA.APP.13612009; LAAPP.13 17/2009; LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP.139/2009; L/\.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.14312009; LA.APP.144/2009; LAAPP.145/2009; LA.APP.] 62/2009; LA.APP.187!2C509: LA.APP.190/2009; LAAPP.191/2009; LA.APP:197/2009; LAAPP.198/2009; LA.APP.l99/2009; LA.APP.20l/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LAAPP.203/2009; LA.APP.10812009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.210/2009 &. CM.No.970/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.21112009; LAAPP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LAAPP.223/2009; LAAPP .224!2009; LAAPP .227/2009; LA.APP .230/2009 & CM.No.7206i2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP .24.1/2009; LA.APP .245/2009; LAAPP .246/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; ,LAAPP.25:7/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LAAPP.305/2009;, LA.APP.367/2009; LAAPP.43 i7/2009; LA.AP?.4/.J.7/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.46612009: LA.APP.480/2009; LAAPP.481!2009; LA.APP.489!2009; LAAPP .49,012009; LA.APP.4 91 12009; LA.APP .493!2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LAAPP.49:5/2009; LJA.APP,S03/2009:, LAAPP.506l2009; , ,. , . LA.APP.507/2009; LAAPP.50,8/2009; LA .. AYP.509/2009: LA.APP.510/200Sl: 'I," ;\0})'i1'1'/2009' LAAPP5J"',I')()()o. 'I,~ ApT; -1" ''lU'()", lA APT) "L'~II'l(')9' l_,'Li'\'[ .J , • • ,,,-,~\, '/', .~,""\-.,~l, r.) ,'/.:.., ,:1. J •••• , 1.)0//,-)( " LAA.PP.S72/2009; LA.APP.15/2010:. LAAPP.45/201 O;LA.APP.48/20 I 0; . ' . ' . 1>A.APPA04/2010; LAAPP.13!20] 1: L/\..A.PP.1138/200S. LAAPP.1176n008; U\.APP.1177/2008; LAAPP.1201!2008: L;\.APP.23 112009 (Relating to Notification No. 1.;-.1 0(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 datcd 13.12.2000 issucd under Section 4 of th6 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) , : ' l~(§~rved o~0_j:2ecembel~_OS~ 20[L EJ.:QJ1.C!unced QJ1:2wlUaJJ!.j)!J~ 2(212 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAG~- BIJWASAN) DEVENDER KUMAR Through: , ..... Appella.nt .M:-.R, S .Tomar, l'vIr.Virendra Singh IA,IIPP,I\IO :1195!mOfl & connected /\ppeals of Viii age Bhartbal I./U\pp. No. ;94/2010 & connf~cted Appeals of Vil!age Bijwas,jn lll../\pp No. Hl/2.010 & connected r\ppeal.l of Village Pocranpu~ Page 3 or 29 G I;:': , I .. ~'.: : versus UOI & ANR LAAPP. 52/2010 LA.APP.56/2010 L.A.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP.242/2010 LA.APP.282/2010 .. LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP.295/2010 LA.APP.346/2010 IA.APP.350/2010 [A.APP. 354/2010 U\.APP.365/2010 LA.APP.360/2010 LA.APP.405/2010 LA.APP.409/2010 L\ .APP. 723/2010 LA.APP.727/2010 LAAPP.750/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP.77/2010 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellaht (inR-2-14, 38,41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75,76) Through:' ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.lVlohitrao Jadha'(', and l\·Ls.Navlin Swain, Advocates . for UOI/LAC· Mr.S.K,Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and J\iJr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,'7 I & 72 in appeal filed by UOI MLl1ankey Bihar Sharma, l'vlr.Kunal Sharma and lYfr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for D'!)A. LAAPP.11/2010 LAAPP.49/2010 LAAPP.51/2010 LAAPP. 53/2010 LA.APP.54/2010 LA.APP. 551201 0 LAAPP.57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LAAPP. 70/2010 ! LAAPP.221120JO LA.APP.223/2010 LA.APP.226/2010 LAAPP. 246/2010 LA-APP.277/2010 LA.APP.281/2010 LA.APP.283/2010 LA.APP.284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP.288/2010 LA./\PP.289/20J 0 LA.APP.294/2010 LAAPP. 2Q6/201 0 LA.APP. 313/2010 LAAPP.345/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA .. APP. 348/2010 LAAPP. 349/2010 I LAAPP. 3~Jl2010 LA.APP.352/2010 LA.APP.353/2010 LA.APP. 356/201. 0 LA.APP.357/2010 LAAPP.35g/2010 I LAAPP. 742/2010 LA./\.PP. 760/2010 LAA.PP.35912010 LA \PP "61'101" . .1 .• ) , I... . d L:\ .. APP.362/2010 LAA.PP. 363/20 I () LA.APP.40'6/201O ,LA-APF. 407/2010 L;\.APP. 408!20 J 0 LA.APP. 43,81}01 0 LA.AP? 58812010 LA.APP. 72'1.1'.2010 LA.APP.72'4/2010 LA.A.PP.725/2010 LA .. APP. 726/20] 0 LA.APP. 72~i2010 LA.APP.731/2010 LA.APP 7::'12/2010 LAAPP.75912010 LA.APP.764/2010 .LAlAPP.828/2010 LAAPP. 28f-i/2010 LA.APP.364/2010 LA.APP. 80/201 0 LA.APP .. 99/201 0 & LA.APP. 75/2010& C.M.No. 96412011 (Cross-objections) , (RcJ~ting to Notification No. F:10(30)96-L& B/LA1l3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the LEwd Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 2B/:?·002-2003,Village Bijwasanj Delhi) :AN})

1.!\.l\pp.:I)O 119S/2L108 & conc.ectc~d /\ppeals of Village Bharth<ll I.,\./\pp. Nr". :?'}1i)OlO & connc:cterlllppca!s' of Viliage l3ijwas<ln iAI\~p. No. 11.i/?OJ.O & connectc>d r\pp~!als of Village P(Jehonpt.:r f),age 4 of 29 ~-~:' " J;, .' . o~ /0 (GRID-C) @ Reserved on: December 18,2011 , --- ' .. ,.·Pl~onounced on: Januarv Oc~2012 .• /":.".i1<f"''- -:'::', ....' ---- LA.APP. 11112010 (VILLAGlj: POCHANI>UR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. ..... App'ellants Through: versus lVlr.BD. Sharma, IVlr.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.APfYoNo. 6],64,65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) UN10N Of INDIA & ANR Thro1ugh: ..... Respondents IVlr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanja~; Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and 1\1s.NavIin Swain .. Ad.vocates for ClOt/LAC' LA.APP.l11/2010 LA.APP.160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP.254/201O Li\.J\PP.292/2010 LA.APP. 307/2010 LA.APV 395/2010 LA.APP.420/2010 LA.APP. 466/2010 LA.APP.637/2010 LA.J\PP. 660/2010 LAAPP. 767/2010 LA .APP. 9] 9/2010 LJ\.APP. 65/2011 LA./\PP.l2G/2011 L/\,i\.PP.476/2011 LA.APP. 523/2011 LA.APP. 536/2011 J'v1r.Bankey Bil1ari Sharma, }Y1r.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDl\. LAAPP. 154/2010 LAAPP.155/2010 LAAPP.156/2010 LAAPP.165/2010 LAAPP. 209/2010 LAAPP. 215/2010 LA.APP.248/2010 LAAPP. 249/2010 LA.APP. :~SOI2() 1 0 LA.APP. 260/2010 L/\.APP.26112010 LA.APP. 270/2010 LA.APP.293/201O LAAPP. 305/2010 LA.APP. 306/20] 0 LA.APP. 317/2010 LAAPP 392/2010 LA.APP.393/2010 LAAPP. 39612'010 LA.APP.397/2010 LAAPP.412/2010 LA.APP. 43~/2010 LA.AP? 433/2010 LAAPP. 434.12010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA-APP.577/201O LA-APP. 635/201 () LAAPP. 639/20 I 0 LA.APP. 640/2010 LA.APP. 657/2010 p ;-) '-)I' ( LA.A~ P. 66..:.;1 -:..,)1 0 LA.APt'.741/201O LA.APr.75812010 LA.APP.76g/201O L!\.APP. 784/2010 LA.APP.918/2010 LAAPP. 1052/1010 . LA.APP. 6112011 LA.APP, 64/2011 LA.APP, 116/2011 I U-\,,APP. 117/2011 LA.APP. 1 J 9/2011 T \. APP '2<"'Y'll Lf.. ~. 1 If ~t.J LA.APP. 129/201! LA.APP.429/2011 LA.APP.485/2011 T A.APP. 52112011 LA.APP.522/2011 , LA.APP, 525120J] " LA. APP. 526/2011 LA.APP.535/2Ull LAAPP. 554/201 i LAAPP: 59112011 L./I.!\pp. NQ. J.l.95/Z008 & CGnnccted Appe~!s of lJil/age Bharthai :, LA./lpo. No, 294/2010 & connecte.d /lppeais of Viliage Bijwasan .

1.I\.1\pP No U:1/201O & conncclNJ J\ppeals of Vii!age PocholnpL'r,' IX) (Relating to Notification', No. F.l O(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR . J . OR.D}~R O'6.oi:2oi".i Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, ·therefore vvith the consent of learned counsel for the partirs present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pert.aining to Noti/ication No.F.10(30)96-L& Bll,A/13417'dated 13.12.2000, relating , , to geographically contigu9us Villagcs Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. ') Acquisition process f01; planned developmcnt of '])wm'ka Phase- /l' in Delhi, commenced with tiw issuance of Notffication cd' rl' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. pertaining to v~st tract of ',agricultural land in one compact bJoc.k i comprising of thirteen Reven'uc E.statcs Including villages in questi1Jn, i.e., BharthaJ, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of th~ appellants herein in the afiJrcsaid three villages stood acquired by thci Respondents vide three separate A wards, , .< , i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award , No.30/2002-2003 granting cdmpensation ;1j). ~13.82 lac.s per acre for ) Block '!\' (level field -- with '!tC)P soil) and @ :(12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' ('vvithout top soil).

¶4Dissatisfied with the ass~ssmcnt of market value of their acquired I,i\./\pp. No, 119!i/2008 & connected i\ppeals.ofVillage BhorthJi. L/\./\pD. N(), 7.9,1(2010 & connected /l,ppeals of Village Bijwasan IA/\pp. No. ] 1 :,/2010 g, conner.tp.d Appeals of Village Pochanpli Page 6 ()( 29 @ I~ ,',,' agricultural lands, appellant? had sought reference under Section 18 of . the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Ret~rence COUli vide impugned judgment had enhanced cOll1pensati~n @ <'15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ~13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bhmihal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, furth:er enhancement of compensation sought by thy appellants of Villages B11mihal and Bijw·asan is at the 17ate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees 'rhirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer? J(arl1{ltakaHousing Board vs. land Acquisition Officer, G'adag and Drs., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani.Jl1olu Desslli VS'. State olGoa and Anr.?

(2010) 13 SeC710; Subh R~un lind 01'5 VS-, State ofHm:vana and Anr., I (20 I 0) 1 sec 444; Sang~nthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. SIJectiai • i Tehsildar (Land AcquisitiOl~) & Ors,? (2010) 3 sec 661 ; Ranvir ,S~ingh and Any, ~JS. Union of Indi~ AIR 2005 SC 3467; (::hindha FakirlU PatU

(D) through LRs 1'5. The Special Lmuf Acquisition Officer, Ja,(gfwn, I 2011 (2) SCALE 321; Jut L~ll vs. Union of India, 2002 (6~) DR] 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) thtough LRsvs. Union of India .& Ardr., 2002 (65) DR] 1 (DB); Udho Dass VS'. State ofoHaryana.& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas 1'S. Shde of PUl~jab& Ors. y 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhal~lOi Naifl. lIS •• Sftate of Mahara,~'htra, (20,09) ! . 1 1 sec 17°1; Atma Singh (Dead) thorough LRs and Ors liS. State if~l llaryana & Anr, (2008) 2 sec 568; v'\l.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as , Smt. lnduKhorana vs. Gram Sabluv.& Ors) decided on; 26.03,2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr F$', M.J(, Rafiq Saheb, (201]) . 7 sec 714; Thakarsihhai l)e~:iibhai {uul ors vs. Executive Engineer, 'l\.llpp. No . .!l"~,17008 I'< cunnected Appeals of Village GhClrtr<1' ,j\jlpp. No. ,')<InOIO &. connected Appeals of Village BijVv<lsan . /Ulpp. No 1 J 1/2010 & collnc>w!d Appr!als of Village POChd~P;.rr Page 7 of ~9 (!) ----~ ! I~~ ),\ " I t:0 (; G"~iarat and Anr., AIR 200 1 SC ?A24; Haryana State Industridl DflJelopment Corporation, (!20l0) 11SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. '- ~~, . Union of India & A.nr., 20q6 (89) DR] 527 (DB); Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) '15 sec 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation I;td vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 sec 745; Jialliyamma! and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and An1-.. AIR 2011 SC 2937;J(ir~m Tandon vs. Allahabad Development A i,uthority, (2004) 10 sec 745; l~ahesh i Dattatray Thirthkar vs. St{~te of lJtaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; I, [(apil Mehra (Major Gener~l) & Drs. Vs; Union of india & AnI', I . , r 176(20] 1) DLT 361; W.P.(d) No. 4284/2007 titled as Sural Singh vs. I Delhi Development Authority & AnY., decided on 24.04.2008; Orn . Prakash (dead) by LRs and Qrs VS'. Union (~lJndia, (2004) 10 sec 627; Satpa[ & Ors VS. Union ojlntiia, (1997) 11 sec 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! J(unuar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.20 II; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ratn vs. l[.Inion (~l india, decided on 07.062011; and 13hu.le Ram vs. Union oflndia, 2010

(170) DL'1' 371.

¶6On the strength of the! aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by l\1r.B.S.Maan~ learned' arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the Requited agricultural land has to be first understood in order to·. apprec,i3.1c its potential which mm,1 be adjudged keeping in vic",,.. the:, dcvcl()]Jmcnt in the area over a period of I time and the same cannot be li~'nitcd to the near future alone. -, / , It was pointed out by l\1r.R.S,Tomar. counsel for appellants I.hat ! Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage rai!\vay line of Village Biijv./asan passes through the land qf Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e.) on the eastern side of the railway linc is the tGl Airport, New Delhi I IAI\pp: :~D. JJ0:,/2003 & connected /\ppeals of Village 13hanhal', IA/lpp. No. 294/2.010 & connected /\ppl!als of Village 13ijwasOln i /\.t\pp, I~o 1l1j2010 & connected /Ippeals of Villagf! Pochanpui { , " ~:~ " ', I ,,: , ... ~ \.'J~:' and Oil Depots of Indian Op and Bharat. Petrole.um and a road 100 rl1cters wide staIiing from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II agail,1 divides. tbe agricultural land into two , . "," ' .. portions; (i) No~·th Easfern side, whereTO! Airport is located; and (ii) Sot1th Eastern sIde, wHere developed Fann Houses are located on the .land of ViHages Bharthal, Bi}wasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed olit by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northen1 pmi of the land of Vil~age B~arthal \vas first acquired for the extension , .

¶1, of IGI Airport in the year' 1971 .and again in the year 1980 1~Jr . establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat • I Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur 'were also acquired in the year 1984 t~)]" dev~lopment of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dho01 Siras vvcre , also acquired for the development of Phase-n, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks, sizraslmap to highlight that the boundary , of Village Bharthal, Village Poc:hanpllf and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maa,n, learned counsel for the appellants that the Referen~e Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the ac~uired land· in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16th October, booo vide::: whi6h land use of the three . . . villages in question was changccl hom agriculturar to residentiali commercial/industrial, etc. and ,infact the entire land of ViII age Bharthal I had ceased to be rural in vie\v o,f the Notification of 24 li1 October, 1994. , .

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rollt? learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Ranul. IA/lpp. ~'o. i:, 1),5:':1008 & conn0.ctQd AIJP('~ls of Village Bharthal ~.i\ App.,No. 29~/7.0:lO &connectcci i\rpcal<; of Village Bijwasan L·,~·i\fl~', i'o. 111/l01.0 & connected Appeal.> of Village Pochanpur I Page 9 oi 29 : '---~;~ L , II Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Drs, (1995) . : I 'I ' 2 sec 305, which has been considered by the Apex COUli in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State ofHai')Jana & Drs., 20] 0(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potenti~l of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limiteq to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities:do not put the land to any use, it would not , mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsd nJr the appeliants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs and i merely because of the said variation, these' sale exemplars cannot be I thrmvn out as has been illeg~lly done by the Reference COUli, because there is no basis to concludel that these sale exemplars are overvalued be;cause of any special advafltages and as per settled legal propm:ition laid down by the Apex Courll, in Anj{mi i~olu Dessai vs. State (~l 6'0(1 and Anr., (2010) 13 sec 71 OJ the average of sale exemplars ought to l-:)(~ "' taken as representing the market price of the land Wfl1ch comesto ':(57 lacs per acre and since the sale exeln-plaI-s relied upon by the appeUants arc the c'omparable' sale inst~nce3, thcrcf()f(:\ reliance placed by the Reference Cc)Urt upon the minimum ralcs/;('lrclc rates 'lor determining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.

¶11A.ssessment of market value of the acquired land was sought b~v' 1\1i·.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates llxed by the Government and also on the basis of prc-, determined rates fixed by the!! Go\rernmc'nt il)r allotmenl of aHcrnatc , . plots in the year 2000-2001. Keephlg in view the location, situation and' potentiality of the acquired lan:d, determination or its market valuc~ IS I,/\)\pp., No, 1195/2008 & connected /\ppeals of Village! Bharlhal LA,/\pp, No, ;'94/7010 & connected /\ppeals of I/ill<lge Bijwzsan 'u';,!\pp Nt'. J:l1/2ClO & connr?cted Appeals of Village Pochanpur . I - -~---~------~------- ~---- . , 1 .. r_' ~? "'i'"'~' if, ;_ ,iT f . krt¢il"c'I'O W::;,tiitJ1:'¢a;:p ~"'f"'P..l',,~,,; c, ,';' .. ~~~-.. '-_.--= \~~- :';, , ~ I I 1,'1 I r f, I sought on the strength of saJe exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka: Phase-lor on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, iappellant-' Impulse India Private Limited of LA .. App. No. 295/2009 ha,s assailed the impugned judgment on the . I . following grounds:- a) "Ignores the acknqwledgement on the part of the respondent about t11e .Award No.2612002;.2003 dated

¶23J 0.2002 being .flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil pt'rit petition No. 190 12 of 2006. (Re;ferred to in cro~s-examinati()n of appellani dated

7.7.2007) hJ Does not account ("or the (clel that the Public Notice • i • dated 18. 9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area jor more than 15 years befi?re the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Ar.:quisition Act, 1894 }vas issued. I c) Valuing the land o'rz the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued, by the Governrnent of National Capital Territory of Delhi is hot in accqrdance with the law laid duwn by various derision.,; including in one (~l the more recent decisions ofl the HOf1'ble Suprewle Court In , I .. 5'angunthala versus Tah~'ildar. 2GJO(3) sec 661. . d) Ignores the evidence' and oti'icr factors which as pcr established law has tq be considered before ascertaining the value of the larld z/nderacqu/s ilion. I e) Does not deal with di~)PQriIJj in VCllwi of the Sale Deeds JHoduced before the trial Cuurlwhereas as pier the len-v established by the Hon'hle .Sllpreine Court in the recent case ~f Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special IJand Acquisition Officer, divi! Apea! No.5475 of 2007. The Non 'bZe Supreme Cm~rt has spec zjic a lly h{?Zd that .Sale Deed showing higher ratE~ sh~)lild not be disregarded in I.I\.!ipp. No . .11'J';/2.D08 & connected I\ppeals of Villuge llhurth~1 lJ\.l\pp. 1110. 294/2010 & connl'ctt,d I'.ppeals of Village ilijwusan IAP,pp. No. 111-12010 & C<:Jn~ecled I\ppeals of Village Pochanour

i): I i =-:-:-::-=::-:-:-__ --:-~=_=====:;:;:::::=;;:;:;:==============_-------------,.c;---=-====-7"l""-;;-==---,--_~ ______ ~ ___ i •• mcmc'c.. ~ '---'- --~-.-- "--_r \ ( i case the average salr price is lower. Fu;~ther in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has: also held that, the highest of the exemplars and not by aver~tging of different types of I sales transactions! shott/d be considered while adjudicating upon cornpensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judg~nent dated

3.3.2008 in LAC I . No.97A12006 to deci(le the market value of the su~ject . land while ignoring ~he maTerial which indicate that the market value of the lc,md is .much higher than J 5 lac per acre in Block A and i~ 13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid dovJn by the lIon 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh R,anl V8. State of I-laryana 2010(1) sec 444. As a consequence, th~ impugned judgment . re./ilsed to return an actuaL .finding on the issue No.1 j7"amed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land qs agricultural lalld although vide Notification of the Municipal Corpoi~ation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and ,came now under the, llrOClI1 boundaries of Delhi State. 771e masterplan ami IVo{,f2cations of Government for land use change ShOlV that in fitiure land can be . su~jected to residential, . l,~mnme;rcial and other permissible uses. It is also pertlnent to mention that the II I d . 'd . . f' h 7 ,th . j-appe antea eVl enre 1.71 n::s[)cct OJ t .e . 4 arnem.ment of the Constitution ~f IndiGr.

11.'. e .. l J. 6. 1993 IX A, by virtue of which the: A1uniclj)ol Cmporation Act 1vas amended and the area where the land is situated, was' deemed a municipal area cmd the lrlunicipal Counsellor HJ(lS elected from thifre. No Panchllyat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply th~ lalt.' laid d011/n in AIR Supreme Court 34~7, Ranvir,?irlgh cmd Anl" vs. Union of india and refilsed to consider the fad rhat the development in the area has a direc(. effecl ;)tI the price thal a l'lJilling purchaser vvould pay/or.the suhjecrlc.U'zd.

i) ignored the fact that Rf:.~:''Portdent,' No. 2 had also c' I./\.App. No. 1195i2'J08 & connected Appeals of Village Bharth81

1.01App. No. 294/}OlO & conN~cid Appeals of Viilage Bi!was,;n lJ\.!\pp. No. 111/2010 & conncctr!d Appeals of Village Pochan~.ur Page 12. Gf 29 e , . ~ l~~ -''{: ~.~:;!;.~l..:, " ~>-- ;------;:--" auctioned similarly pituated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ~2. 6 I kh and concluded that the said land is wholly urzderde eloped land. j) The valuation of the; subject Zemd is even lovver thein the pre-determined auct.ion 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 qlthough the land was acquired for developlnent purpo~es c.{ IJ1·varka Phase 11. It is reiterated that the lqnd use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban bound,aries o/Delhi State. J. ' /) Ignored Notifications dated .1 6.1 0.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearZv establish the cOI1'llnercial potentiality of the sai,d land In Sangunthala v. Tahsitdar

(LA), (2010) 3 sec 961 it was held that the purpose for which land is· acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value 0/ the property acquired the ltJ.ct whether the land has 'got building potentiali(v to be used for building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. 111) The presence of a nwnber ql buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The land~ were acqu~red for Rurpos'e, q/ putting, up residential quarters. As' a portion o/the land is being considered as house site, the adjo~ning lands have the potential cf heing put in better usJ as house sites in the near fillure. " I {j)

¶13In the brief synopsi~, bX \led Pal and others of LA. App.No. 347/2009, the factual details h~\'c been provided \vith a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be tre 1ated at par witI? the co-appeUants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementing the aforeSaid arguments advanced on behalf of the I ' appellants, it was urged by Mr.A.nand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of I !.Ai\pp, r:'o, nelS/1.008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharth<Ji I./\,i\pp, No, 294/2010 15: connected Appeals of Village Bijwas"n Ij\.r\~p, No, 111/2010 & connected /l,ppeals of Village Pochanpur r~ __ ,--:..: I" _. ;::: ii t.; g urbanization of the lands in', the Villages inquestion, i.e., the change i:: land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; l(apil Mehra (M{~ior General) & ; Drs. Vs. Union of India & Ani-, ], 76(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre- . . Determined Rates, Reserved Auction: Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and intact the sale ! . instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the R~ference Comi to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus,' enhancement of compensation l''cl1ecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is I sought in these appeals. ! 5. Arguing the cross-objrctions filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanj.ay Poddar, learned Senior Coun,sel urged that though as per Section 51 , .. A of , I,and Acquisition Act~ 1894, a certi fied copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be; taken as relevant evidence i~)]" determination of the market value unless and until the same is' . , properly connected with the land in question and clement of special I i -fancy of thc purchaser and Dither factors nan:cly, nature, situation of the . . . property, proximity to the village CTC. ate also required to be considert~d and the sale instances relied bpon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired l.ands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in llrd Lcd I , l'S~ Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors liS. Union of india, (1997) 11 see 423; La! Chand liS. Union of India and .41nr.,

(2009) ,15 see 769; LA. AP;P. NO.6S6/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union (~llndia, decided on 26.09.201!, it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period caJ1l}ot be taken to be realistic until reasons for ~;L.ich sharp in~rease are explf1incd by producing in evidence the, seller L(),App No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharth'.al LA.App. ~o. 7.9/1/7.01.0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IAllpp. N,o. IIl//'oJ.O & connected Appeals or Village Pochan~lIr P,lgQ 14 of 29 ;- --~" I ,-- , '9' , ~) and the purchaser as no prude~t person having knowledge of the usu .. prevalent trehd in the marke,t would pay such a higher pay as reflected in I the sale instance of Radhd! 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 b~ countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lal Chand, (supra) which has been followed bY' a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushil [(umar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality !,of the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-i objectors that the same has 41ready been fa(~tored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1 st :'\pril, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per cinnum, market value of the acqui.red lands has been erroneously I " determined by the Reference Comi, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement frorh the price of acquired , lands as fixed by the Land Acquisitiolfl Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be mqdii1cd deleting the enhancement by the e-ft{cFcrence COUl1 while taking into consideration the appreciation (~y, 12(% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line \vhile granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allmving the cross-objections to the aforesaid extdnt. :,,.,\ !

¶17Aftei~ considering the l~ival submi'ssions advanced by both the sides and UP0l1 close perusal 01' the impugned judgment, the evidence on , , record and the decisions cited, vvhat emerges is.that the true market valLI~ 'I • I of the comparable land is the Ptice iJaid by \viIling purchaser to a willing 1J\..I\pp. No. 119:;/;>'008 1'<' connected I\ppeals of Village llh;Jrth,JI i.'\.I\PP, No. 29~/201O & connected !\ppeals of Village l3ijwasan iA/\pp. No. '.n/2eIo f. connecH,r]'/\ppeals of Viliage Pochar,pu', Pogr.15 of 29 . ---' ,-~, ~..::.." I' seller and the best evidence, is the comparable sale instances. 'Vhile dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands rei.terated by the Apex COUli in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana& Drs., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- i ., (i) the situation of tlje acquired land vis~a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its < c'pmmercial, industrial, educational, teligious or any btller kind of importance or because of its explosive pqrndation:

(ii) the suitability of the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the r;ase mery be: !

(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;

(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acqUired landfor building purpose;

(v) existence of highvvaJ's, J.!Llhlic roads, layouts of building plots or :developed residential extensions in the vicinity or clo~'e proxim ity qf the acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advarztages c1 educational institutions, health care centl~es, or the, like. in the surrounding areas of the adquired land ~vhich . mal! become J I' ~ available to the o~:c1{piers of' buildings, if built on the acquired land; an~i', I

(vii) lands around the (required land or the acquired land itse(f being in de;nand for building purposes, to spec ffy a few. ,,' ,

¶18The potentiality lof land for the puq)OSC of development as also for . building purposes depttnds Up6J1 a larg(~ number of factors, For the said purpose, the Court may not 'orlly have 10 bear in mind the purpose 1'o.r 1;I,I\Pt)· No. ll95/7.008 r connected I\ppe<1ls of V!llage BhJrth~! ! IJU\pp. No 7.')4/2010 & connected AppE~<Jls of Village Bijwas3n IAf,pp. No. Ill/lOlO & connected Appeals of Village PochanpLJI, Page 16 or 29 ! ::' {~ i-f ~"'·.'·s~ . ~rlii~h the lands were sough~ to he acquired but also the subsequent events to sOme extent. It has' been so observed by the Apex COUli in Avinash (supra). While reiter*ing the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land relied I • - upon by the appellants could l~Ot be a ground to discard thelh especially , when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Alpresaid dictum stand$ reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. JW.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 sec

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appel1a1~ts is that where there is no basic difference ,either in location, situation qr potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, th9re is no justification for reducing the I ~_compcnsation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land. 20, It is a well established proposJ.tion of law that the burden of nroving the true market value of the accmired land is on the State who 1" <.-: "1 has acquired the agricultural land for', a particular purpose. But, it is egualJy trw~ that the burden pf proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this nwposition, the decision of the I t_ Apex Coun in lOran Tandol1 (Supra) can be referred to \7v"ith a.dvantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyanurwl (Su1;ra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutioris, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction \ , of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in AI1;jani IVlolu Dessai (Supra) deserve altenlion, which are as under:-

1.:\J\pp. No. 1";.S5/2008 & conncc~:ed Appeals of Village Bharth,i IAApp. ~o. 2.'l4/7U]0 & connected I\pp,!als ofVil!age l3ijwasan I.A.App. No, 111/1.010 & connected IIppedls of Village Pochanpur Paec 17 or 2.9 -~-.-.-~.--.. ~-----~-.-~.-,-"-.-.~-~ .. --.--------.-~-.- -~ .. -.- .. "_ .. - L.= \,,l On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the . I . development is faster,! where the demand for land is high and 'where there is construction activity all-around, the I escalation in market iprice is· at a much higher rate. as compared to rural areas. In s0111e pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high dewzand jar land, the I escalations in prices iJ1ave touched even 30% to 50% Dr more per year, during! the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas 1~here there was no chance of any development and har¥ly any buyers . . th~ prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of J % or 2% per annum. 171ere is thus a significant difference in increases in market value 0/ lands in urbanl:'lemi-urban areas and increases ir1 market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if l the increase in lnarket value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, I the corresponding incl:eases in rural areas would at best be only around ha(f ofit,that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum_ 7'l1is rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. ~Vhere there are special reasons for app(Ving.o higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the sam.e. Normally, recourse is .taken tCi the {node of determining the 117ai'ket value by provi,ding appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contelrlpOraneolis sale transactions or . . . I acquisitions of compm;able lartds in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the reZi;;,d--ol1-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is upto '/(-;Uf to five years. Beyond that it rnay be unsafe,: ew:.'n if it "elates to a l1eiohhourinr:.' -.;:... b <..J land. rVhat l'nay .be a J:'cliahle standard rf' the Ocll} i,\ only a I •. ,"::> I . few years, may beco~11e unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is lmg~r. F'or. exwnple .. for determining the n-zarket value of a land Qcqu ired. in J 992, adopting the . annual increase l11.ethod lvith rE:f~:rence to a selle or

1..~.I\pp. "10. 1.1·.Ej/200~ e, cann,~cted Appeals of Village Bh,lrth2! !.I\./\po. ~.!(). ~9il/2.01O & con(]r.ctE~d Appeals of Vill~ge Bjiwclsan IA/\po No. tUn-OlG & 'conn('cted ApPl'ais of Village Pochanp'':1" P'lgc :190129 1---;-7 r~":"'--''''':'' " "The legal position is Ithat even where there are several exemplars with refere~ce to simJlar land'), usually the highest of the exemplary, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Wh~t~e however there are several sales of similar lands 'whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof cbn be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedl} differe.nt, it can only lead to an inference that they are 1~,ith reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. " .

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations I , pertaining to determination o~ fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in ChindJw Fakir-a 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 bona fide sale transactions proxilnate to the point of acquisition : of the lands; situated in the neighhorhood of the qcquired lands possessing sirnilar varue or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor vvhich could be expected to rejlect the I • . true vahle, as agreed blf;tl'veef1. reasonable prudent persons acting in the nonnal market conditions are the re{JI basis to detennine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the-market value of the acquired lamb as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and }"Tatural Gas Corporation Lill. I

(ONGe) (Supra), arc as under:,- "Pri71'zarily, the increas)e in {and prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of develop11'lent in surrounding area, avai~ability (~l land for developrnent in the area, and the dem6.nd for icmd in the area. In rural areas unless there is ahy prosjxlct of development in the vicini(v, increase in p)~ices' wendd be slow, steczczv and gradital, without anysudden spurts orjumps. 'j\.fIPP· No. ; 1'.15(;'.008 & connected Appl:als of Village Bharlhdi! LA.App. No. 7.94/2.010 & connected ',ppeals of Villar,e Bijwasan l.l\.flpp. No. 1J 1/2011) S, connected Appeals of Village Pocha01pu: p,lge 18 of 29 ._-' .-.--... ---.. ----.............. --..... - ... -~ .. --.. - ... ---........... -.... - . "---"'- ...... -. r . . L,:':'L'i'i!',r I I ~r:'2!,~J:TI;r,,:1':'{;;.'1"" ".,",,rfn.'f.t\':,b;:il'mf.~I,I;t.'.!,jI:"'~,~,"i':JED,~.'2J.:\i~.;,:;Et,"'j;"S~'.:fh%",.jJSEu~J~;j,.:;u;:u;)l~u,"ih.~i)",~,,~~J,~:,:l<"",,'.rJ:,-:-:~>-.. ',~l{Jv;-"'''~!;..~~,~.;c'd.J['J.°4'it'~?;J"j,l!t~-~;zVr.tr"""!Jt';J2i~lL, ,~.'!r.L~~i ,::-'...::l."".Yv-, 'I ~,\'- '\ .-~ acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is I because, over the cOW'se of years, the "rate' of annual increase Inay itself un4ergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrencf afvarying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts! in prices affecting the very standard of increase. "

¶24This Court-is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Hm:yana State Industrial Developmen~ CorjJo'-l"ation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensatiQD for' the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods. What was said by. the Apex Court in HSTDC (Supra) is as under:- "When d(f(erent categories of lands (or lands with different silZlotional advantages) lore acquiredfor the same purpose, SOy fhr .forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that d~terminati()n of their value with reference to previous stp-IUS or situation should be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation should be awardedfi.?r all lands acquired unde~ the same notification. "

¶25Undisputedly, in these! appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal., Village Bijwasan of the period inl I . question are not available and,thc solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of! Village Pochanpur} i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious in*itutiol1, i.e., Radha Slvarni Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultura) land in Village Pochanpur at apric\~ which varied from ~52 lacs to \,62 lacs per acrc.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale I:kcds (Ex.PvV-·1I4 to E~x.P\V-lI] 0) \Nhich i . • are basically between one set Qf CO .. ()\Vll.ers arid Radha Swami 5'atsang, I · . . i3eclsin respect of the compa(}t ]block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Poc4anpur reflect the coneci. nHlJ~kct value of I i the land in the villages in question i~\ the m.oot question \vhich is required i ' . to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e,. Sale Deeds L/\./\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Il,ppeals of Village Bharthal IAl\pp. No, 2S4i2010 &. cornected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I./\./\pp. No.n 1/20JO & conncctc!d l\ppe~15 of Vill~ge Pochanpur : L----! ! I ~ I :aJ (Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-I11~) indicate that its price varies from <521acU to ~62 lacs per acre. Me~ning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-li4 to Ex'~PW-1I10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of i , ,""" , the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemflars with acquired land 111 . question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as ! disclosing representative p*ce for the acquired lands in question. The , , special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deed~ (Ex.P~T -' 114 to Ex.PW -111 0) has not been I , brough~out as the purc~1as9r/vendce of these agricultural land has not , I . been got examined by the ~ppeHal1ls. Had the purchaser/vendee of the . aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as towh~ he had agreed to pay such a high price for I I • these lands. The srec~al ffncy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha SvFami Satsang" Beas who had pmichascd rnorc than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Villagc!l\1amurpurvide Sale Deed executed on 25th , . 1\1arch, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 m:d in LA. App. No, 999/20] 0 titled as Raj Singh /-'s. Union of India, decided on I I

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village Mamurpur was di~cardedl wl:Iile holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands. I

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired .lands was changed much prior to t~eir acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their. r;lcquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands we~:e not licvyloped 'lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing 1/1.l\pp, NQ. 1.195/2008 & connected !\ppealS of Village I3harthai IA-IIpp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasa'n lAllpp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeais of Village Poch'ln'pur Pagt~ H of 29 ::' :" I ', , ,/ /~"' . ~ market ~rice of the land .in q1festion woul~ pay s~ch a .high price ~nlesslV and untIl such purchase IS meant for speCIal consIderatIOn and so, 111 the . considered opinion of this (jourt the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds , (Ex.PW-1I4 to Ex.PW-1l10,) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court

2.8. So far as the saleexe,nplar bf Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-·llll) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price ,of ~1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of 2ih January) 2000, it , -. needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-l /11) was I I situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed. (Ex.PW-1I11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon . J including tube well, boring, ~tting, fixtur~, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had retched such a high nrice. In vic\v thereof, this sale exemplar ! cannot be treated as a repre:sentative price' for the acquired lands in gueslion. ,

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing' realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity,! nmv it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO 'jcircular rates for the developed lands and . ! Pn~~Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acqujred lands highlighted by Apex Court in ~lS decision reported as P. Ram Redd..v and Ors. P. Land Acquisition Officer IIyderabad Urban Developnlent . i Authority ffyderllbad and Ors., ] 995 (2) sec 305 arc as undcr:- ! .. 12. !lowever, in eithelt of the said. cases whether it be the determination. o.lthe n-zarket value of the acquired land with huilding potentiality "vvith reference to the price fetched by sale c.:lplots in a well developed ZOJ'out in the neighborhood i 1\.!\PP. No. 11')~j!2008 & cOllnl~r.t(,d.!,pp(!als of Village Bhartha UI.l\pp. Nc. 2.91)/:>'01.0 & c(Jilnccted Appeals of VillaBe Bijwasan : I\/,pp. Nc. Uli/OlO 11, sonnectC'd I\ppeals of Villa Be Por.hanp r P<lge 22 of 29 r- , or whether it he the determination ofthe m.arket vahie ofthe acquired land, with building potentiality with reference to the pricefetched by sale ofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court tofind' out what will be the price fetched or to befetched, by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any ofthe parties, with reference to the price which the plots could havefetched ifsoldon the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be doiie is to find out the market value of the acquired land with re.ference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which \it was putand increase its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpbtentiality ascertained on the basis ofevidence to be made available in •that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land foimd out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased, value for •f '^^'ch building potentiality arises onlylwhen there is no evidence ofsales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land. indica.tin.g that there was no im.me.diate demand, as such, for building plots even, ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the DDA alter acquiring the agricuJtura) lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supia), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand (Supra), acoordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) .and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of IA.App. No..ll.%/?.008 &connoclcd Appeals ofViilage Bhartlial I.A.App. No. 791/^01,0 &conncctcd Appeals of Village rsljwa.san ' LA.App. Mo. lUpma &connected Appeals of VillaBG Pochanpur ' PaRe23of29 .~""" < :',1\ ~,~ the undeveloped acquired l~nds. Thus; I find that the Reference Court 'V has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for ~llotment of developed land or , I , . the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates foraltern~te allotments for fixing1the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required! to be seen is whether progressive increase " method would be relevant diteria for assessing the market value of the '" land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of , ' • • the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of " ! " " Dwarka Phase-I. It was sOMght to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for thi,e respt)l1Clcnt/cross-objector that even if d1e , escalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from ~he • I year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for developm~nt of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notification [or development; of Dwarka Phase-II, still the price fixed by thl~ I,and Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancelpent granted by the Reference Court is unjusti Ii cd.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of I • , • the Apex Court in Lal Chand (Supr~), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method; in assessment of the market value of the acquired land' only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyond that it may I be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be, a I reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable stCl-ndard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the , , gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka , Phase-II is of sixteen years and theTefOl~e, it would be unsafe to adopt the , i mode of determining the 111arket value by providing appropriate L/U\pp. Nc . .11 'J~/2008 & conil(!cted /\ppeals of Village I3harthal L/U\pp, No, "294/2010 & conr.(~cted Appeals of Village Bijwasan I./U\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village pochanpGr Page 24 of 2,9 .:. .. t;J escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous y~aV . I , , , <'

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddan learned semor counsel for the i. respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Comi, has granted escalation @ 12% per an11U111, which is unwananted as a coordinate bench of this Goun in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation ~y 10% per annum. AfLer having perused the decision in I . ' Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acqvired Jand over and above the market value determined by the Referen~e Comi has been granted and so, by relying • I i upon Sushi! Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court ~y 12% per annum cannot he reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of " Jhe matter, the cross-objecti~ns otthe respondent are dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be ~een is whether adoption of Goverl11Tlcnt's minimum price of the agrictitltural Jand in Delhi, by the Reference Court I is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12~,;Q per annum granted by the Reference COUli from the d~tc of fixation of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w,e.f. ]stApril, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserve~ to be further increased or not. 36, Adoption of Govermnent's 111l1;nmUm rates of agricultural land I pertaining to the Notifi:catipn in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to IJ'~ an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 241h October, 1 ~94 declaring agricultural lands: in these three villages' in question to i be ' . , urban. It is true that vide afor!esaid Notification nf the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had c.hangcd bLil that by itself is not sufficient to ill./\pp. No. 1l9S/2008 & connEcted IIppeals of Village BilarHpl iA!\pp. No. L~)4//.010 &. cO'lnec\ed /\ppeais of Village Bijwasa'n i'/\.I\pp. No. 'J l1jm'!O & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ,'" Page Z5 or 29 ~,-' _,.,1 ~_J \"'j be\ngf:) presume that the acquired '(lands had gained potentiality for considered as d<;weloped lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any dev!elopment in and aroul1d the acquired Iarlcls in question. Not only this, qven the sale exemplars of Radha Swami 5"Tatsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricpltural purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges £I-dm the evidence on record that tiLl the ! I , issuance of Notification ungdr Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, " ! 1894, the acquired lands wer'ic put to agricultural use. Had there been i~1crcase in price du~ to highel; demand: on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change' of their use post the year 1994, then ,,~appeIlant~; could have laid their hands 011 other sale instances in the ar~a in question. But; indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instiiDce ! ' of ViHage Samalkha (Ex.PW,-1I11) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and pbtentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Svvami Satsang, Beas in Villa,ge Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1I1l) are comparable with the acquired lands ar'ld so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha, (Ex. P'W-llll) cannot' be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compel~sationwhi1e relying upon the ai'c)rcsaicl s~lc instances. Therefore, in VicVI of the 8f(.m~-referred dictUlil ofthc. Apex Court ill Haryana State industrial Development Corporation (JI,-S~fD'C) (Supra), uniform rate.of cornp(~nsation deserves to be awarded , for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the', rn inimul11 . price fixed by the GoverIiment for the agricultural land in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what' fj\·/I,>,p, JlIQ. 1l.95/20()8 & connected I\ppeals of Village Bharthal LII.App. No. 2')4/2.010 & conn0.cred >~ppeal!: of Village Bijwasan t/\.App, No. 1l1/20.l0 &', connect!:d I\ppeais bf Village Pochanpllt Pa~,e 26 of Z9 --., -.- . • 4l would be expected to be the market gfowth and what the market had l/ actually grown, Governmentfs minimun~ agricultural price has been held , I , . I to be reasonable basis for ~ssessing the market value of the acquired l~nds in Jai Singh (Supra) a~ well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find . no reason to take a different :view tllan the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this dOUliinthe aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra). I.

¶38This Court is of the considei-ed view that the Reference Cmui in ; the matters pertaining to· Vlillage Bharthal and Village Bijyvasan has rightly relied upon the Go~ernment' s minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to .fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bhmihal and Village Bij wasan, of there being no ~vidence that the potential and the situation . of the acquired lands is similar to sa]e exemplars is borne out from the i evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the , acquired lands being in close vicinity of theIGI Airport, Indian Oil and i Bharat Petroleum Depots anp of Railway line passing through Village 13harthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NI-I-8 from Shiv .Murti side to Dwarka Suh-City, Pali J and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somebow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the cons~dcred opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid l,ocational advanta·gbs, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building poten'tiality being in vicinity of Dv/arka Phase-I. What persuades this COUli to igrant lOcJ,/c, increase ovel~ and above market value of the acquired landsj· as asse§scd by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildir~g potchtiality i~ the acquired lands is the l/,/\pp. No. 119:;/20088, connected I\ppeills of Village i3h"rthal IAl\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasa~ U\.l\pp. Nco; 111/2010 & connected I\ppeals of Village Pochanpur Page 27 Df 29 ~ , ' , , I ,-- i I settled 1egal position aptly Ii highlighted by the Apext COUli in Mirza I . . . Nausherwan Khan vs. Coll¢ctor, (1975)1 see 238, in these words:- .. I , I "W71en once a' concnlsion is reached that there was the possibility of the acq~dred land being used for putting up buildings in the immefiate or near future, such conclusion would be s~~fficient to, hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality ~~nd proceed ro ,determine its market value taking into acco:unl the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶39Considering the fact trat it would be very difficult to provid(~ a definite val LlC qua potential, '!,and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is I ' broad probabilities of the inst~m cases, which persuades me to treat them : ' I \vith equivalence by uniforIlily applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands 'as there a~~e no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, app~l1ants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying UpOil the decision in Sushil l(umar (Supra), I am inclined, to grant: 10% increase over and above the ll1arket value of the acquired h:mds determined by the R:efercnce Ctlul1· in .- these matters on account v1' the aforesaid locational advantages I providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question. I ~l 0 '+ . Accordingly, these app~aJs arc partly allowed to the extent of . , awarding] 0% increase over aqd above the market value assessed by the Reference COUJi in matters per~aining to Village Bhmihal and Village J3ijwasan.While treating the appellants ofViUage Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of , . . , L.~,l\pp No. 1l:::;/~008 & connected I\ppeals of Village Bharthal I l.~~.~.pp. No~ 29/1/;>010 & conncctcd'l\ppeals of Village Bijwasail [/I/lpp. No. 111/2010 & connected /I.ppca/s of Village Poch~npur Page 23 of 2~ ______ T" ____ ~ __ ---.--- - - -"------------ -~---'--------~.-~-.-.'--- ", ,,' ~- J D the appelJants of Village Pochanpur arp also allowed to the indicated above. Thus, the niarket value .~-:- the acquired la~~_~hCX?e three villages in question is d~.·.termined. @ 16,50,0001-per(.bigh~ for the .• (£.... __ ... , y",--11 . . ,&L<:--'w.!':_. .0. . Category 'A' land and @ ~1!4,69,600/- perQigha for the Category 'B' . 'P;--' . . I • J" . L ) \\ .anus 111 questIOn. . • I 1 ....... 1 \ ,.A

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reportedinSul1der VS. U012001 (93) DLT 569 arc I , . granted, except for the period I where there is a delay in filing the appeal, fOl.·· which oeriod of delay no iliterest on the enhanced compensation shall , - I be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. ,

42.' The above ca.ptioned ap'peals and cross-objections are disposed of I in the aforesaid terms with I! direction to the Registry to remit the , compensation amount, if any, pepositcd by either side with the Registrar I (J cncral 0 f this Cour.t, to the qonccmed Reference Court. I?ecree sheets be accordingly prepared. . January 06,2012 pkb r' \' "'<J .' ," I ., ~ ;) 1(' ~~::>' "'". (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE ..... ( (....... / ,T . . (,', f,J:, t "',. ]. .. -/ I L' .' ~ -' I "",~, r,"i '~""',! .. '(' (" / 1,,1! l.1\./lpp, No. 1195/2008 & connected App~als of Village Bharthal li\.l\pp. No. 2'J4/1..01O & connl~cted !\ppeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.l\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected IIppeals of Village POchanpur P,lge 29 of 29 ------,--.-------------------.-~------'~-.-.. -.. _-,-_._--._" -.. _,----~--

•• :::0..- ( 'r-;:; ~-. '--''--.I * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 118/2011 0/0 MAN SINGH versus UOI& ORS CORAM: ..... Appellant Through: Mr.M.K.Vashisht, Advocate ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate forUOl/LAC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR