Balbir Singh Dec Thru Lrs & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. '. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb '-1, "i' Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. j I ,f./ ~ * iN I'BE lHGH COURT OF DJEtH.U AT ~'HCW llllF,LlHJ K u/~ (GR1D-A) 1i~$.fl'V~CLQ]L_NoY!J..mJ2eLL8L2iUl Prol1()ul1cec/ on: Jal1uarv 06 20 J 2 .. ~ ...• ___ ._" ___ .. ____ .. _ .. _ •.. _. ____ •. ,. ___ •. _~ __ .. _.'.J. _____ .' __ ,_ LA.J\PP.] 195/2008 (VILLAG~> lBH.f\lRTHAlL) RANB1R SHAR1VIA ..... Appellant Through: IVlr.B.S.J\1aan, Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, 1\1s.Smita Maan, lVIr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates J'v1r.Anand Yadav and lVIs.Anita Tomar, Advocates, versus ['vir. Robras, }\d-vocate. Mr.Raghuvindcr GoJara, Advocate Mr.N.~.Negi and lVirJ-LS.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout ;llld Mr.B.K,Routray, l\;1lr.]\;LAzam Ansari, Advocates. l\1r.PanlG:~i Vrvck, /\dvocate lVILRajesh Y Elc;n. rvlr.J)cepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla , '- and IVlr.Drlananjay lVlchlLilval, Advocates Mr.H.S.P:aUleL~, /\d\/ocate . lVfr.I.S.DahiY<:1, Adl,'C'cate l'v1r.Sandecp ThakI1:JL Advocate [\;1r.Atul TripmhL ':KaLc. 1\ .j - N S 'N'" .' , "J' .~ L r "Q " I " i \L ' ',,- " ·.H· r .lVJ.l .• " e.g] (lll !..:[ .,).IL,8111t.,d." I.nUv,)Ldll..,) HIt responden1. .in apJ)\~Ci.ls filed by UOJ) UNION ()F INDIA & ANR. P "'SI"f'I'-l"Y'" ,..... .\ . .l .... jJ,,; \t,e I .. t,., 'i'hruugh: J'iVl1";aI1J'c"': D(,(L,[,t" r;;I'l-1i,)]" !~\,d'l'nl"'<'f' \7<..i1·'I+1 "1;/[. '\.~"·li:l'·' ."'-..1 ,. l.Y J .J--"",:( \~ I).' " .,.' ~ ... {~Ll., .......

¶1,i.I._.L",j'~.I_',,) Patbak, Mr.1V!ohitr9.c .,J_dJw\· and r/I:-:.'i"Jc;vlin :';\.\ain. Ms.K.Kaumudi IGn1fL Advc\cc.rL~:~) tOl'T /\..C,'LJOI 1\1-A' ., \.' . l' ~ ri"·:.:{.,, 0 .:j ". <;" .• ' IV1"lVd J' '""!,, IV 1. J3j CllLd"YL,JA/Cllcl:l lcl\V 001d.

¶1: 11.1\L. "I., Kumar, f'v1r S.K.Sc " N(r.P<.l'\'v'un !VlathuL i\;h.Kuna! Sharma, Adv:,)CaLC; DDA

1./\.1\ lYP.4 J~~/2008 &: CM.NoA006/2UGS (Cross··Objections). f..'\d\Ppj5?r~()()(t LA ... ,\PP.453!21l08; LAAPP ,588/2%8!\~ C,\1.(\fo.599()/:20 10 (Cross·Objcciion:s): i ,/\.APP .6i)7/2008 & eM .No433!20(j'i (Cl\)~;s··Ob.ic'-ti ems): 1./\./\ PP 7U U?()C(; l\': C\'l. N ') 51 (i/.2009 (Cross-Ob,! i.~cti 'Ji1~,): \ i\PP '7 c-;g:2 (lOg:,

1.'\.1\ P 1). TlP/20tHi., I/,./\;~p. ~~o, 11~~)/?OO.3 & cc)J"·tlccled /\ppc:;:ds of \ji!!tlg(! 8hl.l~!.h~d ; .'\,/\[10, No. /9/l/70Jl1 f:.~ conner1cd l\pp(~.Jls of"Villr3iW ei.iWiJ~,,)tl II\./\pp. ;\'u. 1 .. .I:i ()010 g, COf1IlC'cl'·.d /\ppca'; o· VlilaiW l'occanpIJl' PiJJ-~l' )', CJi /0 -.' LA.APP.771!2008 & CM.No.42S/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.772/2008; LAAPP.77312008 & CM.No.383512009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.774/2008 & eM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections):. LAAPP.775/2008; LAAPP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LAAPP.782/2008 & CM.No.94012009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LAAPP.784/2008; LA-APP.78S12008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.93112009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.80S12008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.81S/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LAAPP.829/2008; LAAPP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LAAPP.845/2008:. LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.89212008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA .. APP.901/2008: LA ... APP.915/2008; LA"APP.951/2008 & CM.No.70912009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.959/2008; LAAPP.973/2008; LAAPP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LAAPP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & ClVLNo.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP.993/2.008;LA.A.PP.l 029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1 03112008 &.. CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I032/2.00S & CM.No.S99/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I046/2008; LA.APP.l 047/2008;LA.APP.l 048/20U8& CM.No.78S1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I050l2008; LA.API'.1 051/2008 & CM.No. J 72.6212008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1 052/2008; L!\.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No,416/2(109 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP.l 054/2008 & eM .No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections);, LA.APP.1 05S12008;LAAPP.1 057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.1058/200S& C1Vl.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.l 059!20U~ & C:;\/1.No.17259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LAAPP.l062.12008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I073/2008; LA.APP.I074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I075/2008; LAAPP.108112008 & 'CM.No.462/2009(Cross-ObjectlOns); LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/200.R (Cro~;;-Objections); LA.APP.I086l 200B & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections): ['!\:/\PP.l 087/2008& CM.No.619/200() (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.] 093.'2008:, /\.APP.l 094/2008:, LA.APP.I0951200g; LA.APP.II03/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections):LA.APP.1108/2008 & eM .No~3S39!2009 (Cross-Objections); LA}\PP.I109/2008: LA .. APP.1 1 10/2003 & CJ\!l.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l11li2008; L/\.APP.1112/2()08 & "1\1'-1 ") 8") 1 /7009 (C' Ob' . '. ( 1\ A 'PP 11 I" 1'1 l')C) v & t·'··\ II 'I\T. "V"'? 12('( () \. !v ,]\0.,'), -:l ~_ •. 10SS-JectlOI1S). Lh ... '-\. . . .l. _~I L ~ ..... JvL,iO .. )o-:.\.i,,'.) (Cross-Objections); LAAPP. J 115/2008; I.J\.APP.l1 J 6/2008: LA.APP.1121l2008; LA.APP.1126!200S; LA.APP.1129/200g &: Clv1.No.550/200Cf (Cross-Ob,iCC(lOllS); LA.APP .1130/2008; LA.APP .113U20o;.; 3~ C]vU';;o.566/20n9 (Cross-Objections). LA.APP.1133/200S; LAAPP.113Si20U8 & CM.No.744212009 (Cross-Objec~ions): LA.APP.Il3 7/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-c:)bjcctions); L!\.APP, 1140/2008; LAAPP.llS6/2008; LA.APP.1157/2008; LA.APP.1158!2008 & Cl\1.No.7774l2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.] 159/2008; L/\/\PP.116112008; LA.APP. J J GIS/200R:. LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.i\PP.1170/2008; LAAPP.l] 71/2008; LAAPP.1172J2008:, LA.APP.l] 73/2008; LAAPP.1J 75/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; Li\.APP.1179/2008:, LA.APP.Il g 1/2008; L./\.!\PP.1182/2008; LAAPP.1] k)nOOg& C'M.Nc .69JJl2009 (Cross-Objections); t/\./\PP.1184/2008; LAAPP.1185 /200g; LA..APP.1186/2008& CM.:No.701J/2009 I /U\pp. ~Jo. ~ll9Si7.008 S< connected /\rpeals of VillagE' 8harthClI

1./\ I\PP. No. ?'Jil!7.01G Ex con;wctf,d /\ppeals of Village Bijwas'lll IA/\pp. No. 111j).OlO & connc'c[l'd /\ppeals of Villag'2 Pochal1Pur' . Page 'L 01' 29 - ;. ~ \~ ( % (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1190/2008; LA.APP.119112008; LAAPP.1192/2008: LAAPP'] 193/2008; LAAPP.1194/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008: LAAPP .1198/2008& CM.N 0.693 SI2009(Cross-Objections); LAAPP .1200/2008; LAAPP.1202/2008; LAAPP.1203/2008; LAAPPd210/2008; LAAPP.1211/2008; LA.APP.1212/2008; LAAPP.1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LAAPP.1225l2008& CM.No.695712009(Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241l2008& CM.No.384112009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1243/2008; LAAPP.1252/2008; 1,!\.APP.1275/2008; LAAPP.1276/2008; LAAPP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008; LA.APP.1280/2008; LAAPP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008; LA.APP.31/2009; LAAPP.33/2009; LAAP?37/2009:, LAAPP.39!2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.74/2009; LA.APP.79/2009; LAAPP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I08/2009; LAAPP.I09/2009; LA.APP.12112009; LAAPP.135/2009; Ij\.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.13712009; LA.APP.138/2009; LAAPP.139/2009; I j\.APP .140/2009; LA.APP .14312009; LA.APP .144/2009; LA.APP .145/2009; LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; LA.APP.190/2009; LAAPP.191/2009; LA.APF:197/2009; LAAPP.19812009; LA.APP.199/2009; LA.APP.201!2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LAAPP.203/2009; LA.APP.20S/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP,210!2009 & CM.No.970/2011 (Cross-Objections); L/\.APP.21112009; LAAPP.220/2009; LAAPP.222/2009; LAAPP.223/2009; LAAPP.224!2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.n06i2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.241!2009; LA.APP.24S/2009; LAAPP,246/2009; Ij\,APP.249/2009; LAAPP.257/2009; LA.APP.29S/2009; LAAPP.305!2009:, LA.APP.367/2009; LAAPP.437/2009; LAAP?.447i2009; LA,APP.4SS/2009:, LA.APP .459/2009; LAAPP ,466/2009: LA.APP .480/2009; LAAP]? .48! 12009; LA.APP.489/2009; LAAPP.490/2009; LA.APP,49112009; LAAPP.493/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LAAPP.49S/2009:, LA.APP.503/2009; LAAPP.S06/2009;

1.A.APP.507/2009; LAAPP.S08!2009; L!\./\PP.S09!2009: LA.APP.SI0/200CJ; l '\ "I)}) 511/)1)0·9' I A APP 'i 1 'i !J()()o. .! /~ L p"'; -1') 1'70· ( .. ',:). ·l A A Pl') .. C-/i'l()· ()(l. "1 J\.. . . _ \ , -'. . _ -,-, ~ , ") '. ~ Il .. , \ !.) ., /._ .I.. h _., ,~ 1 . .) I) I iL" . ";l , LA,/\PP.572/2009; LAAPP.lSI20J 0;, LA.APP,4S12010; LA.APP.48/20[ 0;

1.!\.APPA04!2010; LAAPP.IJ/201l: U\.A.PP.1138/2008; LAAPP.117C/2008:, ! .A.Apr .1177 /2008; LAAPr .1201/2008~ LA.APP.23 [/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.IO(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acqllisiti~)n Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) B..e.§§!ved otL-,Qece!J.lbeL_Q~~ 2QU PmJ70unced QJ'L.2CUlUGllJ? ()6~~JJj2 LA __ APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BtJWA.5AN} DEVENDLR KUMAR ...... Appellant Through: Mr.RS.'!'omar, lVlr.Virendra Singh I !U'-pp. 1110 1195/.'008 & connecteci i\pp(~als of Village Bharthal I /\.I\pp. l~o. ~94i2010 & connected /\ppeals of Village Biiwasan ! /\.I\pp No.1 11./2.010 & connected :\ppeals of Village pocranpu: P<lge 3 or Z9 "-------- ~---.~--.---.--- .. ~. --"_. __ .. _---_ .. .-} versus UOI & ANR LAAPP. 52/2010 CA./\PP. 56/2010 LA.APP.I00/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP.282/2010 LA.APP.287/2010 LAAPP.295/2010 LA,APP. 346/2010 U\.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 U\.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP.360/2010 LA.APP. 40.5/2010 J,/\.APP.409/2010 L/\.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP.727/2010 LA.APP.750/2010 LA.APP.964/2010 LAAPP.77/2010 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and l\1r.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) Through: ..... Respondents MLSanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate 'with lVlr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadh:.:f\', and l'v1s.Navlin Swain, Advocates for {JOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and l'v1r.S.K.Rout and JVJr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by' UOI. IVlr.Vircndra Singh, Advocate in H.-68, '7 J & 72 in appeal filed by U01 Mr.Sankey Bihar Sharma, Iv1r.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer I(.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LAAPP.11/2010 LA.A.PP.49/2010 LAAPP. 51/2010 LAAPP.53/2010 LA.APP . .5412010 LAAPP. 55i20 I 0 LAAPP.57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LAAPP.70/2010 LAAPP. 221/20J 0 LA.APP.223/2010 LAAPP. 226/2010 LA.APP.24612010 LA.APP.277/2010 LA.APP. 28112010 LAAPP, 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP.285/2010 LAAPP.288/201.0 LA./\PP. 289/2010 LAAPP.29"}/2010 LAAPP. 296/201 () LA.APP. 313/2010 LAAPP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LAAPP. 34912010 LA.APP. 3S I /2010 LAAPP.352/2010 LA.APP.353/2010 LAAPP. 356/2010 LA ... APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 3:~g/2()IO LAAPP.742/201O LA.APP. 760/2010 LA./\PP. 359/2010 LAAPP.361/20JO L'\.APP. 362/2010 LA.iI.PP. 363/2010 LAAPP.406/20]0 . t/\,APP. 407/2010 LAAPP. 408/:'0 J 0 LA.APP.438/2.010 LA.l\PP, 5881'2010 LA,APP. 7:~~l201 0 LAAPP. 724/2010 I ,A, /\pp, 725/2010 LAAPP. 726/2010 LAAPP. 729/2010 LAAPl-'. 731/2010 LA.APP, Tl2/2010 LA.APP.759120\0 LA.APP.764/2010 . LAAPP. 828/2010 LAAPP.286/2010 LA,APP.364/2010 LA.APP. 80/20.1 0 U\.APP.9912010 & LAAPP. 75/2010 &. C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F,lO(30)96-L&B/LAI13417 dated 13.12,2000 , L- . . , .' issued under Section 4 of the LEwd Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/:2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND l..'\./\pp. No 11')5/2008 & connected Ilppeals of Village Bharthill IA/\pp, No. 2()'1/7.010 & con0c:ch~rJ i\ppea!s of Village aijwasan '.lI./\pp. No. I1jj:W10 &. conncctc'd r,ppc'als of Village P()r.ha~pur , [';.lge 4 of 29 ---;-! -:! · O/,; /0 (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18~Oll Pronounced on: January 06L J.J)...:.LJ LA.APP. 11112010 (VILLAGE lPOCHANlPUR) SEI-IAJ RA1\1 AND ORS. ..... Appellants Through: versus lVIr.B.D. Sharma, IVlr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 1:0 40, 44 to 49,59,63 tc 71) . Mr.S . .B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 6J, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) UNION Of INDIA & ANR Through: ,. ... Respondents lVlr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate vvith Mr San.ia~! Kumar Pathak, MLMohitrao Jadhav, and 1\1s.NavIin Swain .. Advocates for UOI!LA,C Iv1r.Bankcy Bihari Sharma, ]\11'. Kunal Sharma and lV[r.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11112010 LAAPP.154/2010 LA.APP.155/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.APP.228/2010 . LAAPP.248/2010 LAApJ. 249/2010 LA.APP. 25412010 LAAPP.260/2010 LA.APP.261/2010 LA.APP.292/2010 LAAPP.293/2010 LAAPP.305/2010 LA.APP. 307/2010 LAAPP. 317/2010 LAAPP.392/201O J,A.APr.395/2010 LAAPP. 396/2010 LA.APP.397/2010 LA.APP.420/2010 LAAPP.4321201O LA.APP.433/2010 LA.APP. 466/2010 LA.APP.489/2010 LA-AP). 577120J 0 LA.Apr. 637/2010 LAAPP.639/2010 LA. APe. 640/2010 LA.APP.660/2010 LAAPP.662/201O LA.APP. 741120 J 0 LAAPP.767/2010 LAAPP.768/2010 LA .. APP. 78412010 LAAPP.919/2010 LA.APP.I052/20JO LA.AFP.6112011 LA. APP. 65/2011 LAAPP. 116/2.011 Li\.,A.PP. 117/2011 LA./\PP. 120/2011 (L~\~APp~·T21i2()TTJ-/ LA.APP. 129/201 ~ U\.APP. 476/2011 '!::A.AFP.48Si2crrf LA.APP. 5211201 J LA.APP.523/2011 LAAPP.525/201] LAAPP.526/20]1 LA.APP.536/2011 LAAPP. 554/20] 1 LA.APP.59112011 LAAPP. 156/2010 LAAPP. 215/20 J 0 LA.APP. ~~50/2() 10 LA.APP. 270/2010 LAAPP. 306/2010 LA.APP. 393/2Cll 0 LAAPP.412/2010 LA.APP. 4340010 LA.API'. 635/201 () LA.APP. 65712010 LJ\.APP.758/2010

1.A.APP.91g/:2010 LA.A?P.64/2011 LA.APP. 119/2011 LA.APP.429/2011 LA-APP.522/2011 LA.APr.53S!2Ull I.IU\pp. No. JJ.95/200S & connected Appe"ls ofVillagp. Bharthal i:i\./\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeais of Viliage Bijwasan '.il./\pp No 111/7..010 & connected /I.ppeals of Village Pochanpu;· PJge 5 oi 29 0/' ~% (Relating to Notification No. F.I0(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & l\ward No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM; HONvBLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL G/\UR ORDJi1=JR ---.. -~ ...

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on whlcb enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, therefore vvith the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to !\Iott/ication No.F.10(30)96-L& B/L4/13417 dated 13.12.2000~) relating geographically contiguous ViDagcs Bharthal, B(jwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. ! Acquisition process for planned development of 'lJvvarka Phase-Il' in Delhi, commenced with tbe issuance of Notffication (f 13"1, December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agriculil1ral land in one c1JmpaCl block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in questiml, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the ailJresald three villages stood acquired by the Respclncicnts vide three separate l\.wards, i.e., A"vard No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award NoJO/2002-2003 granting compensation @ ;z'13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field --- with top soil) and @] '(12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (without top soil).

¶4DissatisCiedwith the assessment ofmarke:t value of their acqlJired LI\.l\pp. No. 119:;12008 8, connected I\ppealsofVillaf,e Bharthal l/u\pD. NrJ. 29£1/7.010 8, conn(:cted Appeals of Village Bijwasan !.lI.l\pp. No. 112./2010 8, conner:tr<d I\ppeals of Village Pochi)npur Page 6 ()i, 29 -:-1 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Comi vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ <15.00 lacs per acre i~C)r the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ <13.36 lacs per acre f()f their Block '13' land in Villages Bhmihal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have becn dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bhmihal 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 -fhirty 1clCS per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Ex.ecMJiive E1l11gi1l11eer9 IKarnOltaka Housing Board V§. Imnd Acquisition Olficery Gad{Jg and Ors" (?O 11) 2 see 246; Aniani iVlohtt Dcssai vs, State of Goa wrild Ai'llr, 9

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ran1J and Ors ~)S" State ofllmTmDa (and AlJtu'"

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs, Vs. £,peda! Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors,? (2010) 3 sec 661; Rafll!vir Singh and AnI', vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fa/(.in,y PatU

(D) through LRs vs. The Special JLwnd AcquisitiOfn Officery JalfgatoU1l, 20] 1(2) SCALE 321; fai Lal ~}s. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rwna Nand (since deceased) tlltough LRs lVS, Union olIndiu Sc/Jinllt" 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Vdho D'{uS8 VS'o State o/l1!arya!fuu & fOrs. 9 20 I 0(9) SeALE 41; Chakas V5. Slrde of Pumjab& Or!')'" 2ilY] 1 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash DhavlOi No.iii V~"i" State of IHhdii,fu"{[f:viJruNIf, (2009) 11 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) Hzrougi. LRs and Drs vs, 5',t(ff,te ~~l Haryana & AnI', (2008) 2 sec 568; vV.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Srnt, Ind/u J(horana vs, Grmn Sabhcg & Ors! decided on 26.Cl3.2010; Special Land Acquisition Oflicer & Anf' vs. M,J(. Rafiq Saheb, (201]) 7 sec 714; Thakarsibhai De~:iibhwi and ors vs, Executive Engi!l1leer, U\.I\pp. No. ncc'J17008 1'>1. connected Appeals of Villa8E' Gh,H"tha' :.I\.l\pp. No. ;>'H/7.010 .&. connected I\ppeals of Village Gijwasan . /\.I\pp, No ,] 1/2010 & conn(~cted Appeals of Village PochJ"pi.li' --! \ "'-:, . / \ > . Gl~jarat and Anr., f) ." AIR 2001 SC 2424; Harya?la State 1ll1ldustr' . Development Cmporation J (2010) 11 sec 175; Risal Singh & Drs. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DIU 527 (DB); Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 sec 769; General l~lanagerJI Oil mull Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Wi. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patell mull Anr, (2008) 14 sec 745; VaUiyamma! and Anr vs. Special Tehsilldar (Land Acquisition) and Anr .. AIR 2011 SC 2937; liiran Tomaon E§'. Allahabad Development Autlwri~y, (2004) 10 sec 745; JilJahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Alaharashtray AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (M{~jor General) &: Orrs. Vs. Union (~llndia &: AlJfJit, 176(2011) DLT 361; \V.P.(C) No. 428.:1-/2007 titled as SurraY Singh ~J§. Delhi Development Authority & Ap1ir., decided on 24.04.2008.; (Jon Prakash (dead) by LRs and Drs vs-. UlJ1don of India, (2004) 10 sec 627; Satpa! & Ors vs. Union of iruihu, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! l(ummr vs. Union of IndiaJ decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. NO.59/2007 titled as Bed Ralt01 vs, I[]nj(m (;~l india, decided on 07.06.2011; and 13!ude Rmn vs. Vni{}!ino./buJi1-aJ 2010

(170)DL'1'371.

¶6On the strength of thc· aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, iit was urged by l\1r.B.S.Maan: learned' arguing counsel for the appellants tbat thc location and situation of the acqllircd agricultural land has to be first understood in order to apprec;iate its potentialvvhich must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7it was pointed out by LVlr.R.STDl11ar, counsel for appellants that Dclhi-Rcwari-Jodhpur broad gage raihvay line of Village t3iijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two paris:> i.c., on the easte111 side of the raiJvvay line is the tGl Airport, New Delhi i./\.I\pp_ No. lJ95j2003 ,'\, connected /\ppeals of Village Ilhanha! i i\.App. No. 2'!4/2.010 & connected /\ppeals of Village Ilijwas<Jn ; ,~.I\pp. I~o. 111/20lO & connected /\ppeals of Villaf,(~ Pochanpuc Pi;c;e 8 or 29 I' and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Sbiv Mmii towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where TGl Airport is located; and Oi) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses arc located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It 'was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of 101 Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Vi l.l age Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 nx development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villagc~} Bamnoli and Dhoo1 Siras were: c. also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City, Attention was drawn to the aks sizraslrnap to highlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhoo1 Siras arc contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the nght of its location and has j I Jcgally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16th October, 2000 vioe 'whid1 land use' of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to rcsidentiaU commercial/industrial, etc. and irifact the entire land of "Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 24(11 October, ] 994,

¶9It was argued with much vehemence hy Mr.S.K.RoU1 J learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rru.ff1J'w I /I./\pp, No. LI')S/Z008 & connected /\ppeals of Village Bharlhal !./\ I\pp." No. 2911/7.010 & conll('ctcG f\r,p('als of Village Bijwas<m UI.1lpp. f"D, .1.11/201.0 & connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur Pagc9 of Zg ; .~ - Reddi & Drs. ~)s. Land Acquisition Office)'; Hyderabad &: Oniy (1995) 2 sec 305, which has been considered by the Ape.x Court in its later decision in Udlw Dass vs. State of Flaryatf1la & Ors" , 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the ared over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any usc, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality. IO. Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price ret1ected therein \'3.ried from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude lhat these sale exemplars arc overvalued bccause o[ any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Aff~j{fJni Idoh /f)e§~yd v§. State of Goa ({[{nd Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the Jand which comes to ~S7 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants arc the comparable' sale instances, thcrefc)rc, rehance placed by the Reference Ccmrt upon the minimum rates/circle rates for determining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.

¶11Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by 1\1r.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre·- determined rates fixed by the (Jovernm(~nt for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the location, situation and lJotcntiality of the acquired land, determination or its market value is L~.!\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connect12d Ilppea!s of Village 8harthal U\./\pp. No. 7.94/1010 & connected I\ppeals of' \/il/age Bijwasan l/\./\pp No. l'lJ/2CI0 &. conn(?cteo I\ppeolls of ViI/age Pochanpur i:_ ; ~ " sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur arlt:l 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. ] 2. III the written synopsis, appellant -'- Impulse India Private Lirnited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.16/2002-2003 dated 23,10.2002 being flavved in the course of the proceedings Civil VVrit petition No.190 12 of 2006. (Re./erred to in cross-examination oj' appellanz dated -7 7 )007) / .. ~ / h) Does not account for the f(JCI that the Public l'lotice dated 18.9.1987 adver,Yely aflected the rates qf land in the area for more than I j years b~r;.')re the Notification under Section 5 of the Land /}cqui.sition Act, 1894 was issued c) Valuing the land on the basis 0./ the Letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the Governmen.1 of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one (~f the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tah~)'ildar. 2010(3) SCC 661, d) ignores the evidence and other fClC:tors which as per established law has to be consic/ered beft7re ascertaining the value of the land underacquisiliorz. e) Does not deal with di,sparity in l;ollie of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court H1zereas as per the len-v established by the Hon'bleSlfpreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special l~and ... ()fl' n··, 1 ! )\7 C;4'~') .c 2')(')7 7" / CqUlsltlOn 'jj lcer, CIVll / JNa nO .. ! / .. oJ, I) _ /. ne Hon'ble Supreme Court has 5;pec~fjccdly held that ,Sale Deed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in 1/\.f\PP, No, .1 19r;/2D08 & CDllnt:cted IIpp(!als of Village 8harthul ~ ,.\,/lpp, 1110. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village llijwasan : 1\.I',pp, No. 111/2010 & c~Jnnected IIppeals of Village Pochannur Page 11 0129 ;-.: \: case the average sale price is !olver. l-l~u;rther in Al?jana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, dl~e Suprem.e Court has also held that the highest of tize exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while ac(judicating upon compensation upon a certan land f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No. 97 AI2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the malerioll'vhich indicate that the . market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ~ 13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the lIon 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram 1/8. State 0./ Ilaryana 2010(1) sec 444. As a consequence, th(; impugned judgment . rejz1sed to return an actual finding on the issue '-A/o.1 jl:'amed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi .State. 771e masterplan and NOl'{l7catiorzs of Gut'ernment for land use change shmv 1h.ar in future land can be su~jected to residential, 'cOlnmercial and other permissible uses. It is also pert:inent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in re''lj'Ject 0/ the 7 41h am:endment qf the Constitution of frldta. lV. cj.: 1.6.1993 IX A, b~l' virtue of which the A1unicl)xrl Corporation Act 1'1/08 amended and the area 'rvhe/"e the land is situated, 1'vas deemed a municipal area cmd the municipal Counsellor was elected .Fom there. No Panchc~yat elections were held in the .area. h) Refused tp apply the 1mI' laid d()1t'n in AIR Supreme Court 3i67, RanvirSiFlgh CUlC{ Anr vs. Union qf India and refilsed to consider the fCII:'t that the development in the area has a direct effect ;')n the price thaI a vvilling purchaser H'ould pay for the sU!7ject leu·ui. . . . [")' lcrnol~e -l tJ1e fa" ct /"}1'11' j:>e"If'-lV'r/pn" . 7\ Tc' ) h -1;/,1<:0 "b . (. ...... i. ..

1.·»f·u,lc,.;i JV'.J .. ~ Lci i.-.... , .. . IAl\pp. No. 1195/I.'lOIl & conn(~c\ed Appeals of Village Bharthal IAApp. No. 2.94/?010 g, cannE:c\ed I\ppealsof Village Bi!wasan LiU\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanr:·ur \_: --~-'-"-~~~.----~--'~~-'- .--~---------~-~~-~- auctioned Si111ilarZv situated land as cOlnmercial 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 lovver 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 0/' D'vvarka Phase 11. It is reiterated that the land 'use of Village Dhool Siras arzd Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries o/Delhi State. !) Ignored Notifications dated .1 6.1 O. 2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 It was held that the purposefc)r which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the prc)perty· acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiali(v to be used for building purposes in immediate or in near fitture needs to be considered. 171) 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 land'S were acqUired for purpose of putting. up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands hove the potentia! qf being put in better U.'N: as hou,ye sites in the nearfitture. " i 3. In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have bel~n provided with a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appca:ls in thesc bunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocatc that the effect of !A!\pp. Polo. 1195/2008 & connected !\ppeals of Village Bharthal L!\.!\pp. No. 294/2010 & connect(,d Appeals of Viilage Ilijwasc;n l.!\./,pp. No. 11.1/2010 & connected /l,ppeals of Village Pochanpur \:, ~I) ~"::""-'J7--;-'-Tl')"'-7-r': '/,' -------------~-- "-:f!·i urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the Chan~ land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkal' vs. State ofMalwrashtra, AIR 2009 se 2238; J(apill~lehra (JVJ{~jor Genera!) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(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 Reference COUl1 t) assess the correct l1mrket value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of con1pensation reflecting just, fair and adequate marJ:zet value for the: acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged i.hatthough as per Section 51 ",A of l,ond Acquisition Act, 1894, a celij tIed copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence i~,)J' determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. ate also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon bytbe Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai Lad ~}~'. Unio~"d of India, 2002 (62) DIU 227, S~]ltpai & Ors '1'S. Union a~l lndia, (1997) 11 sec 423; La! Chand liS. Union of India al/u!41nr"

(2009) 15 sec 769; LA. APP. NO.656/2008 titled as Sushill(rtflfJ1u&r VS. Union a/India, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons ror such sharp increase are explained by producing in c~vidence the. seller LI\,l\pp No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal U\,l\pp, No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan lA/\pp, No, 111//.01.0 Il, connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Pug'" 14 of 29 If) and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swmni Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decis,ion of Apex Court in Lal Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh ( supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it vv-as urged by MT.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural ~and by the Government as on 1 ,( /\ pri], 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon (fy 12% per Clnn Ul11, market value. of the acqu.ired lands has been erroneollsly determined by the Reference COUli~i as in Susiuil J{f-UfI1JUU" (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified r..iclcting the enhancement by the: I{efcrence Court while taking into consideration the appreciation (?y 12(% per annum and the same deserves lo iJe brought in line'vvhile granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby alloY'I"ing the cross, .. objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17'Aftel' considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and Up0l1 close perusal of tile impugned judgment, the evidence on record and the decisions cited, \vhat emerges is that the true market 'value of the: comparable land is the price f)aid by \yilling purchaser to a willing i.I\./lpp, No. 119':,//008 1:" connected IIppeals of Village Bharth31 i,)\.Ilpp. No. 29~,/2010 & connected !\ppeals of Village Bijwasan i fUlpp. No. 1.11/2010 ,Ii" connc,ctedllppeals of Viliage Pochimpur P2.gr~ 1 S r:1 2.9 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. \lV-hile dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, 'what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof~ stands reiterated by the Apex COUl1 in Urllw Dass vs. State of HarYalfull ,& Ors", 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village lvhich had been growing in size because of its cOlnmercial, industrial, educational; religiOUS or any other kind of importance or because (~lits explosive population;

(ii) the suitability of the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, cOl11Jnerciai or industrial, as the case mery be:

(iii) possibility of obtaining water. and electric supply/or occupants of buildings to be put up on that land,·

(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired landfor builcling purpose,'

(1J) existence of highvvays fwhlic roads, la.vouts of building plots or develuped residential extensions in the vicinity or close proxirnity qfthe 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 becorne available to the occupiers olbuildings, if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itseff being in deinond .Fw building purposes, to spec tty a !evv. "

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a largt: number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have 10 bear in mind the purpose for i/\.l\pP. No. 1195/7.008 & connected I\ppeals of V:llage BhJrthal 'j\.,\pp. No 7.94/7.010 & connected Appedls of Village 13ijwd53n IAl\pp. No. 111/2010 & cO;lnected I\ppeal.l of Village Pochanpur . v ~ .J which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequ nl .. events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Comi in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination .' of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Alma Sin.gh (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anrvs" .M.I(' Rajiq Saheb y (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land. iO, It is a well established proposiTion of law that the burden of nroving the true market value of the acc.lUired land is on the State who , '- -1 has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, ill is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in lOran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to \vith :3_dvantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyarnrrwd (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vlciliity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges vvas improper. 'The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court i:'l Anjani ]i4ofu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- : "-App. No. J 1.';5/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharth'li /\.App_ I~D. 2.94/7010 & connC'cted l\ppE~ais ofViI!<Ige Bijw3san !JU\pp. No. n·l/)'Ol() & wnnectcd /I.PpcOils of Village Pochanpur Page 17 or 2.9 "The legal position is that even 11Jhere there are several exemplars with reference to silnilar land'), usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar larids whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of t-vvo sales are markedly d?flerent, it can only lead to an inference that they are H)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 pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex COUli in Chindlw Fak,ira Pea,iil (Supra), vvhich are as f'ollows:- ,/"1 "".:) . "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 trctl1sactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated il1 the neighhorhood of the acquired lands posse,)'sing similar value or utility taken place betlveen a willing' H.:ndee 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 rea! basis to determine the Inarket value. " Principles to determine the market value of the acquired land:; as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and j"/atural Gas COIrponatlol1l Ltdo

(ONGe) (Supra), are as under:- "PriJnarily, the increase in Land prices depends on four factors - sitilation of the land, nature of deVelopment in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demancl for lclVld in. the area. In rural areas unless there is any pruspect of develop7neni iYL the vicini(v, increase in prices· vvould be slow, steady and gradual, H,ithout anysudden spurts or jumps. I /I.tlpp. No. J J ~1:;/2.008 & connr~cted I\pp"als of Viilage Bh,1rl1l"I

1.1\.l\pp No. ?'9~/2.010 & connected tlppeals of Village Bijwasan IAfIPP· No. 111/2.0103, connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ~ i_: On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the developnzent is faster, where the demand for land is high and "where there is construction activity all around,the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. Tn some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched (;\len 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly an}' buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginalZv at a nominal rate of 1 % or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant dfflerence in increases in market value oj' lands in urban/se11'zi-urban areas and increases in marker value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in Inarket value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annwn, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum This rule of thumb refers to' the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear 1..7.nd specific evidence relating to increase in prices. TVhere there are special reasons for appZving () 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 Sa7ne. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearb)! lands in previoZls ,years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisifion), where there is no evidence of anJ' contemporaneolls sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably sale where the rehc(i.-oJ1-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject o:cquisition by only a few years, that is upto/hur tofive year.~. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighhouring land. U/hat !nay be a rcliabfesiandard if the g-aj7 Ls onfJ.' Cl fel'lJ years, Inay become tlrtSa/e and unreliable standard 1+here the gap is larger. For exanzple, for dete,vmining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adoptihg the annual increase method ll'ith nfic?rence to a ,safe or \"'..I\Pp. \)0. 11'JS/200i< 8, canm:cted ApP2als ofViJlage Bhilrtha! l/\.I\po. ~J(), ·)(111/2010 & connr.cted r,ppeals of Village Bi,iwasan I/\.I\pp No. 11..1/2010 & connected Appeai, of Village r'ochanp'.;1 P;lge 19 of 29 i_,_ acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have nzany pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annzJal increase may itself undergo drastic change apart /i"om the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the ve~y standard of increase. '!

¶24This COUliis mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haff'JHlfJ!1Ufl State Industria! Development Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative saJes methods. What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When different categories of /an.ds (or lands with different i situational advantages) are acquired/or the same purpose, sen' .lC)!' forming of ares identia! layout, coz.trts have sometimes felt that determjnation of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and c{ uniform rate of compensation should be awarded for all land'! acquired under the same notification." 2S. Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal., ViUage Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e" the seven Sale . . Deeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Sll'wni Satsang, Bees had purchased the agricultural land ill Village Pochanpur a1 a pric>:' which varied from ~52 lacs to ~62. lacs p~r acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PVv'-1I4 tn EX.P\V-liJ 0) ,,,,hieh are basically between one set of' C(HJ\Vners and Radha Swami Satsang, BeClS in respect of the compact block of land 111easuring 18 Bigllas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pochcmpur reilect the conect market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question \vhich is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e," Sale Deeds II\.J\pp. No. 1195/2008 & conllected I\ppeals of Village Bharthal [.,\.App'. No. 2'",(1.010 &. connl'ctcd Appeals of Village Bijwasan IAJ\Pfl· No. 1 11/20JO & conn~ctcd l\ppe;]ls of Village Pocha~pur . 1-' 1_". (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1I10) indicate that its price varies from ~52 1'. to ~62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1I4 to Ex,PW-1I10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1I4 to Ex.PW-1I10) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purchaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high pdce for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Sl;vami Set tsang, Beets who had purchased ll?ore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale Deed executed on 25 th l\1arch, 2000 was also subject maHer in LA .. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union o/India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh ~'s. Union of India:. decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands. 27, In the instant matters, though tbe land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their. acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing lAl\pp. No. 1.195/2008 &. connected !lppeals of Village Bharthal lAl\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village B'ljwasan lAl\pp. No. i 11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur P<Jge ;:I of 29 \--.: market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.P\V-1I4 to Ex.PW-1I10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-llll) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ~1,76,SS,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of2fh January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW -1111) was 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 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 question. ')9. Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, nmv it is required to be considered ::l.S to vv'hether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre~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 acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as p" Rarn Red{zv and Ors. P. Land Acquisition Officer llyderabad Urban Developnnent Authori~F ffyderabad and (jrs., 1995 (2) sec 305 are as under:- "/2. llowever, in either qf the said cases whether it be the defennination of the market value'ofthe acquired land with Imifding potentiality yvith re/erence to the price fetched by sale c~lplot;s in a well developed 1cl)'OUt in the neighborhood i A'/\pp. ~Jo. :I1'J~;!200g & connected./\ppeals ofVi!lage Bharthal IAApp. Nc. 29"'J;'01.O & connected Appeals of Village Bqwasan I A.!\pp. ~Ic. 1J If/DIO 0( connected Appeals of Village Pochanptlr ~ I: or whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land vvith building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becom~es inevitable jar the Court to .find out what will be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales of plots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could havejetched tlsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary not~flcation under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where 110 evidence of price/etched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 40) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it It'aS put and increase its vahle by a small percentage havin,f!, regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed ]15th of the market value (~f the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method oj giving increased value for such building potentialiZy arises. only when there is 110 evidence of sales of building plots il1 the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating ther! there was no immediate demand, as such, for building plots even iffonned in the acquired land. II

¶31In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the 1)D/\ after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable l6 rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lemos. Following the dictum of La! Chand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jui Singh (Supra) and Sushili(umar (Supra) has eXCluded the DDA fates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of I /\.App. No. 11.9~ij7.008 & connected Appeals DfVillage Bharthal tAt-pp. No. 7'Mj20l.O & connected /\ppeals of Village Bijwasan IA;flpp. No.llJ/20JO & connl:cted Appeals of Village PQchanpur Par,e 23 01' 29 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allqtment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria 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 nf Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be· argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectnr that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-l and the instant NOli fication for development of Dwarka Phase-II, still the price fixed by the I Jand Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated prilce and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjusti [j ed.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in vievil of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lal Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progl~essive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired Jand only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, 111,3.), become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phasc-I and Dwarka Phase-II is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate IA!\pp. No. 119S/2008 & connected Ilppeals of Village Bharth,ll L!\.!\pp. No. 2.94/2010 & connected !\ppeals of Village Bijwasan IA!\pp. No. 111/2010 & conn(\cted Appeals of Village l'ochanpur :'11 )-: escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous yea:

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned semor counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference COUli has granted escalation @ ·12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Comi in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted·· escalation (fy 10% per annum. After having perused the decisjon in Sushi! J(lUInar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acqllired land over and above the market vaIue determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushi! Kumar (Supra) escalation gral:~ted by the Reference Court (f0 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 1 O~/O per annum. In this view of the mattcr, the cross-objections of 11lC respondent are dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Governn}ent's minimum price of the agricultural Jand in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Governmc~nt \V,c.f. 1st April, 2000 tlU the date of Notification in the instant appeals. deserve:: to be further increased or not. 36, Adoption of Government's mInImum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants beCallSC the acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural land by virtue of I\lotification of 24111 October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these !hree villages in question to be urban. 11 is true that vide afore~aid Notification of the year 1994 the land lise of the acquired land had changed btil th'at by itself is not sufficil~nt 1:0 Ill./li)P. No. JJ95/20C8 & connc,cted J\ppe;lls of Viii age Ilharth;lI ill /\pp. No. ,~')tl/20J.O &. connected ;,ppeals of Village Bijwasan LI\J\pp. No. J 11/201.0 & connectl'd I\ppeals of Village Pochanpur ; -~ ).: presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami ,S'atsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the . appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose. "7 J, . Rather, it emerges from the cVldenc(~ on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, J 894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand: on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then -', appellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area -- , in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1I11) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha S'wami Smsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Sa111alkha (Ex.PW-1I11) arc comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PvV-lI11) cannot' be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensation 'v\'hil.c relying upon the aic)resaid sale instances. Therefore, in vic\!/ of 1JlC; ali.)fC-reierred dictum of the. Apex Court in HaT]Jana State indusu'ial Deve/oplnent Corporation (JI,-~7D(J (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same! l'~otifjcation in the light of the minimum price fixed by the GoverrllTlent for the agricultural land in DeIhi, which generally factors in the. rise of price due to higrler potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what : i\.!\pp. No . .11'6/2008 & cDnnected /\ppeals of Village Bharthal lAApp. No. 294/7.010 & connecred ,~ppeal,: of Village Bijwas;m U\.!\pp. No. 111/2010 & connect!:Q /\ppeaisof Village Pochanpur Pa;"e 26 of 29 would be expected to be the market growth and what the marke actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been heJd to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a ditTerent view than the one which had been tak.en by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'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 \/illage Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the sItuation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is bnrne out hom the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 mctt:rs vide road starting [rolll NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part 1 and Part II, divi.ding the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Hnuses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somebow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, cC11ainly . . assume higher building potentiality beii1g 1n vicinity of DV/arka Phase-I. What pcrf'!uades this Court to grant 10%, increase OVC1~ and above market value of the acquired lands' as assessed b~ the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the i/, /\pp. No. 119S/2008 8., connected /I.ppedls of Village Bh,nlh<ll IAl\pp, No. 294/2010 & connected I\pp~;als of VillagE! flijwasan I (".I\pp. No: 111/7.010 & connE!ctl!d I\ppE!"ls of Village Pochanpur PClgc 27 of 29 1-:- settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext COUli in l~ir;-(,{K iVausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 sec 238, in these words:- "W71en once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near fit/ure, such conclusion would be s~ffficient to hold that the t!.cquired land had a building potentiali(v and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. !)

¶39Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them \'lith equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices Cor the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par vvith their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, \vhile: relying upon the decision in Sushil J(lUnwr (Supra), I am inclined to gnmt. 10% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands cletermined, by the Reference Coun in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals arc paTtly ::tl1owed to the extent of awarding] 0% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters peliaining Lo Village BharihaJ and Village Bij v,'asa11. \Vhilc treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and VilJage Bijwasan, the appeals of '. i·/lpp No. 11.(!~/7..008 & connected I\ppeals of Village Bharthal , !·./\PP· No. 7.9rl/;>010 & conr](1cted I\ppeals of Village Bijwasan I ,\.;\pp. No. Ill/ZOW & connected /\ppeaJs of Village Pochanpur )-.: o the appellants of VillagePochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these dL.c.'~~t.l;'::"'." .... " three villages in question is determined @ ~16,50,000/- per,.bigha, fOir th:~ _ a ... .:~:-'l~~~,'""'.. ~:'"~L" •. _ ... n •• \. , •• -.' ........ \ 'j Category 'A' Jand and ~D ~14,69,600/- per Q~gha for the Category 'B' :f ~---~"-" .. . . .cr 1, lands 111 questIOn. \ I \") •. _1

¶41On tbe aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in Sunder VSo VOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in J:iling the appeaL, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of .in the aforesaid terms with direction to tb.~ Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar (Jenera] 0 r this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly j::Jrepared. Januarv 06,2012 " pkb IAflpp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I/U\pp. No. 2')4j2010 & connected !\pp('als of Village Bijwasan 11\.!.~pp. No. 111!7.010 & connected I\ppeals ofViIJage Pochanpur il·( (,;' 0",':.:. (SUNIL GAUR) JUnGlE: 2 '/1 !'e I f {' I Page 29 of ;~9 l_:_ * + 1% IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW D1E:LHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, l\JIrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate l\1r.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOl) l\1r.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. . .... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with CORAM: . Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao ladhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, MsJ(.I(aumudi J(iran, Advocates fot LAC/UOr Mr.Ajay Verma,J'vir.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, lVIr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shalllla and MI-.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 9RDE~

12.01.2012 C.M. AppI. No. 752/2012 (For conrec1tioll1). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of6(h January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice ;;..;,o:W-:lt:f'il.'f.!ijtjJ!p!fHII[;)~i'li"iiEW""U·~j.MD4;1'! ~~~ImJ!!rn;w;p;t§ A=j!piIIIj~~C!r~ LAApp.No.1195/2008 Page 1 ~. ;'- of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been . given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6th Janu8TY, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', \Iv'hereas it should be ;per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph " f1.0: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out fortlnvith, In vie'Vv of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. JANUARY 12,2012 pkb --_..> .... "," ,_." __ ,_~~';:',;::'~'f}r;,,;,~:--:~.~." .. -~, .. ~-"~~ __ ,. -·'''~''''--(SUNIL GAUR) JUJ[)GE 1-~7!T·:''<lm'Ji3'Sl'M'ffiiIfl!?!:'ni!!;;pr!iJjl!!ttre!!i!!TR.m;~'''i!'$ilii&4M5&9*WVml!5!l''a1!S!!w a&&!iB!'t'~dFW!!!f~'lm,!I'lr'':''!ITffll.tt.!'i1iR ·~~~J.llJ LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: December 18,2011 Pronounced on: January 06,2012 + LA.APP. 12112011 % BALBIR SINGH DEC THRU LRS & ORS ..... Appellant versus Through: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20,23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49,59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr .Raj esh Y adav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents CORAM: Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOl/LAC . Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR