Birkha Ram Dec Thru Lrs & Ors v. UOI & Ors

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 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. ~/ ·, >I' IN THE [HUGH COURT OF JDTli:tn-Ul AT :NEVw' 11llEtBlI (//~ Bq S.!?1~~_ QJ1, .. NQ~Ci{11 b(~1~L8 L ~'jU ! Pronounced 071.' Januar'JI 06 20 J .2 ...... ___ "_"_._ .. _. ____ ._.,_ ..• _. ___ .,, ___ , .. ".._. ___ .:.1. __ ,.,_", __ .. _. (GRID-A) LA.APP. J 195/2008 (VILLAGE-1BJ1~}-\RTlfliAL) R;\NBIR SHARJ\1A ..... Appellant rhrough: TVlr,B.S.J\1aan, [V(r./\milMaan, lYIrJai Prakash, l'1s.Smita Maan, l\1r.Pc.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates l\1r.Anand Yadav anc11VXs.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Robtas, AdYocal:e. versus MLp .... aghuvin,jer Godara, Advocate MLN.S,Negi and IVirJ-I.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roui and MLB.K.Routray, M1'.I';1.Aza1'n Ansari. Advocates. Mr.Pankai. Vwck. j\,Jvocate .' . MLRajcsh Yru}2\\" l\tr.Deepak T(hosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and lVlr.Dhannnja> [ltchla,vaL Advocates IVIr.H.S.F':ameL, /\(I.'o'ocatc Mr" I ~ ')':>J1'[\'·~ /\d\·~"'''·a1·''' "'- v.l..Y. l.t jL~~_. {l·' .... ~t ... r\ Arr S"aJldl·'Pll Tl1",)··'[",·, I', d"r c'·' <", .v 1 .l.. C /~ J" J.! (.t,I\ •.. 1" .. ,,1... '.~.' ~ 'i.J _,Q l~ .... 1\;1r.Atul Tripathl, ocaLe:. !\. '1' 1\) c' .~ 1., .' ,. , .. 1 ,~ I·· r (' I·' 1,1,-· {\ :1. '" .' .''- J[' " iVt.~ .,-, .. "It.,gl cll1U ,., L'_~. \,8.11 t.,d." \iI.UV\)LdU ... ) ()i. responcien1. in apr>~~11s filed by tlOl) U:>JION ()F INDIA & ANR. p t'''l" (I'i '-lent" . u... _ \,. "._ ,.J ,; llJ ~ , .' 'Ihruugh: JV. II" '~al-lJ' ('., " n ("(lr.!. ". r.' I ~l'l; I )1' Ill. r::J1 . ()" "<'(~ \lVl~ '1+ ,\;i/ r \(.)'" I ,., i ;1", .I.J . ~.vl /_ ... ",Ju .. \~1.)' •• , .',«. t~!"'.ctL, ..... , .. i.~l t".,._("I\I~" .. ) Patbal<, Mr.1V!oLitrac· Jdh<l\' and I'/I:;,'I',J C:.\' l. i n ai n. 1\11" T/ rl', .,. '-j: I(~'" '-. 11·\ '·v·"·'·,,,, 1~"-·! li:·'·'!i) 'l::>.J\..J\.8.UldLl J .... !, •. 1i:" .,',l \ l ",dI.C) (!', ,I" '.1..,., , 1\1-A' . \,1 1" ~, ~ tJ .• :~ .. , ·'1 A '·1 ~. ,(" .. ,' IV" ,- lV' j'.' .:', lY 1. .Jay e,.1l:d"Y1Cl.)..>U,,]cl:l 1Cl\-V 1.)0111. 11, :iLl \t .. :,J, I(umar, 1V11' S.!<.'idhL N[r,Pa\',1i.lIl iVlathm, l\;1r.Kunal Sharma. AdvocaLC; DDA 1/\,/\ PPA J~2/2008 &: CM.NoA00hnUOt: (C'ross--',JhjectiollS). L\,/\PF". ':5~~/:'2UOg; J ./\",\PP ,453/2")08; LA.API> .Sg8!21)(J8 )\~ (:.>,,1. i'iG.599()/20 J 0 (Cross Ot).iccilO!1:;); i ,;\.APP N) 7i2008 1St Clvl.No,+3 :~i20ry; (Cr')t;s .. ObY:diol1S): I.;\,i\ I' P7U 1 i?()() ;;& CH.N'JS10/2()09 (Cross-Obj\.~C1i')i1;;): L \/\PP 76g:)O(ii':; I .. '\./"t!,!JT/C/2Unti I/\,.I\;~p. ~~o, 11:J:)i~:OO,S & cOI'lnectc:d ,\pp(~{ds of\jillclg!! i3harLh~ll : ·'\ .. '\00, N(). /9/l/7lJJC (.~ cO!'lller.1ed /\pr.(~:.ds of'ViJlaB[: 8iiW~I:HHl I !' .. I\pp. ;\'IJ. 1 .. 1:; hmo g, COI1IlC'Cl'·.d ,\ppci6 of Villag[, l' ou"<1'IPIJI' PJf-!." I. (Ji ):0 :- ~ , '\" ,'t LA.APP.771!2008 & CM.NoA25/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LAAPP.773/2008 & CIVLNo.3835!2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CIVLNo.G 11/2009 (Cross-Objections):. LA.i\PP.775/2008; LAAPP.776i2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LAAPP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); L/\.APP.783/2008; LAAPP.784/2008; Ll\.APP.785/2008; LAAPP.798l2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objectioils); LAAPP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LAAPP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.S 14/200S & CM.No.S06/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8·18/2008; LA.APF,819/2008;, LA.APP.820/2008; 1 j\.APP.829/2008; LAAPP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LAAPP.83J/200g; LA.APP.844/2008; LAAPP.845/2008; LAAPP.87312008 & CM.No.77Sl/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA,.APP.901/2008: LA.APP.9] 5/2008; LA.APP.951l2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objectiops): LA.APP.959/2008; LAAPP.973/2008; LA.APP.97412008 & CM.No.5LW2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.97:5/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LAAPP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572l2009 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP.993!2.008;LA.A.PP.l 029/2008& eM.No. J 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I03112008 & CM,.No.1733S12008 (Cross-Objections); L/\.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP'] 046/2008; LA .. APfl.1 047 12008;LA.APP.l 048!20IJ8& CM.1'·Jo. 7851. /2009 (Cross-Objections); . LA.APP.l 049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I050/2008; LA.APP.l 051/2008 & CM.No.17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP.1052/2008; LA.APP.l053/2008 & CM.No,416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections):, LA.APP.lOSS/2008:,LAAPP.IOS7/2008 & CM.No.752/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.l058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I059l2()Og & C~/1.No.17259/20()8(Cross-Objections); LA.A.PP.I060/2008;LAAPP.I062!2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I073/2008; LAAPP.I074/2008 & CMJ\"o.623/2009 (Cross-Objections):. LA.APP.1 075/2008; LAAPP.l 081 /200i~ &C~v1.No.462!2009( Cross-Obj ections): LA.A.PP.] 084/2008& CM.NCi,17302.12(10R. (Cros;;-Objcctions); LA.APP.I086i 200g & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections)~ LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No,6]9/200() (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.] 093<2.008:, A.App.',] 094/2008; LA.APP.1 09512008; LA.APP.I] 03/2008 & CM.NoA41/2009 {Cross-Objections):LAAPP.110S/2008 .& eM .No.3 839/2009 (Cross-Objections)~ LA;\PP.11 1}912008: L/\.APP.ll10/2008& C]\i1.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA ... APP, l11li2008; LAAPP.l112!2()08 & ~'rv1 "I .., 0'" ] Ij n09' (' Cab"· . ,'f II t 'I)P J 1 1 ~ 't-"l')() 0 & (':\ A 'I\T .., \)", ( /j ')()O \" .l\o .. )o.)~.. ..1'oss-JCctlOl1S): Lf') .. -\ .I .. ;/L. ,0 .~ ",JY1.110 .. )O":.),_( ... 1 IC"'C)s"-C)1'j'ec't'l'OllS')' LAAPP 111t:.:i')('J())Z· 1;\ (\PP IlJ?:'/'l008' l'\ADJ') 'll~i1/2n('IX' \'J .. ~'"\ v.' /").""" .)/.;..... U~, ... /·'l..._,.~ .. \JIL !' ;f.l .•... _ .. ~I..,,\).t ... LA.APP.1126/2008; LAAPP.11291200g & C!\;U.,Jo.S50/2009 (Cross-Objections); : ,/\.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.II 31 120m; 8:: Clv!.l\;o.566/7,009 (C~ross-Objections). I.A.APP.1133/2008; LAAPP.l .13512008 &. eM.No. 7442/2009 (Cross-Objec~iolls)~ LA.APP.1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/20(18 lCros::>-Objections); L/\.APP,l140/2008; LAAPP.1156/2008; LA.APP.1157!2008; LA.APP.1158!2008'& Cl\1.No.7774i 2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l1S9/2008; LA ... APP.116112008; LA.APP.] J 66/2008:. LA.APP.l]6712008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.1l6812008; LAAPP.1170/2008; LA-APP. J 171/2008; LA.APP.1172/2008:. LA.APP.l17J/2008; LA.APP.1175!2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; LA.APP.1179!2008:, LA.APP.1181/2008; 'T.A./\PP.1182/2008; LAAPP.l J 8311008& C'M.No.693V2009 (Cross-Objections); lJ\./\PP. 1184/2008; LAAPP.1185!200g; LA.APP. 1186/2008& Cl'kNo.70 1 3/2009 I /\.!\pp. ~Jo, 1195i7008 <'< connected /\ppeals of Village) Bharthal L/\ I\PP. No. ),9fl./7.010 & connectEd /\ppcals of Village !3ijwas'lli L/\./\pp. r·Jo. :i.1J'/:!(l1O & COliliC)cled /\ppeals ofVillag'2 PochallPur' !'age t: 01' 29 -;') ; % (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1190!2008; LA.APP.1191!2008; LAAPP.1192/2008: LAAPP.1193/2008; LAAPP.1194!2008; LAAPP.1195!2008; LAAPP.1197/2008: LAAPP.1198120(')8& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LAAPP .. 1200/2008; LAAPP.1202!2008; LAAPP.1203!2008; LAAPP.l210!2008; LAAPP,l21l12008; LA.APP.1212/2008; LAAPP.1213/2008; LAAPP.1223!2008; LAAPP.1225l2008& CM.No.6957l2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.384112009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP .1243/2008; LAAPP.l252/2008;

1.!\.APP.1275/2008; LAAPP.1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LAAPP.1279/2008; LA.APP.1280/2008; LAAPP.1281!2008; L!\.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008; LA.APP.3112009; LAAPP.33/2009; LA.APP.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; LAAPP,79/2009; LAAPP,95/2009 & CM.No,953/2011 (Cross-Objections); L/\,APP, 1 08/2009; LAAPP.l 09/2009: LA.APP.12112009; LAAPP,135/2009; L!\.APP.136/2009; LAAPP.137/2009; LA.APP.138/2009; LAAPlP.139/2009; L!\.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP.144/2009; LAAPP.145/2009; LA.APP. [62/2009; LA.APP.187/2009: LA.APP.190/2009; LAAPP.19112009; Ll\,APP.197/2009; LAAPP.198/2009: LA.APP.199!2009; IJ\.APP.20 1/2009; 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.2 J 112009; LAAPP.220l2009; LAAPP.222/2009; LAAPP,223!2009; LA.APP.224.1:2.009; LAAPP227!2009:, LAAPP.230/2009 & CM.No.n06/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24111009; LA.APP.245!2009; LA.APP.246/2009;

1./\.APP.249/2009; LAAPP.257/2009; LA.APP.29S12009; LAAPP,305/2009:, LAAPP.367/2009; LAAPP.437/2009; LAAP?.44·7/2009; LA.APP.458/2009:, LA.APP.459/2009; LAAPPA66/2009: LA,APP,480/2009; LAAPP.481/2009; LA.APP.489!2009; LAAPP.490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LAAPP.493!2009; LA.APP.494!2009; LAAPP.495/2009; U\..APP.S03/2009:, LAAPP.506/2009; I ' ~l)P 507/2009' LA APP 50 111')(l()o. 1-1-' I~ DJ) 'iC)OnOllC\- y i\ AP' -D .:; 1 f)no('u, ./\..j'\.. _. .' . . t...1 ._.I\.)'~ . ...1. ''t.. ... "X ....... _ 7,,- J). t..l~'-l.. .. _

1..--, .I ... ~ )~~, LAA.PP.S11/2009; LAAPP,512/2009: L/\.APP.S 13/2009: LA APP.S67/2009; U\./\PP.572/2009; LAAPP.lS120J 0:, LA.APPAS/2010; LA.APP,48/2010; LlU\PP.404!2010; LAAPP,13/2011: jj\./\.PP.1138!2008: LA.APP.117C./2008:, LA.APP .1177 12008; LAAPP.1201/200!';~ L/\.APP.23 1/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.I0(30)/96/L& B/LAIl3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcqUIsition Act, 1894 &. Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) B.f:~~rved ou: Decembe.LQ8, 2I1U. p[Q.!LOunced QJ1:.l.anuw:.l!. ()(~~-.lJ212 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BUWA.8AN) DEVENDER KUMAR ' ..... Appellant Through: IVlr.R. S,Toma.', lVlr.Virendra Singh I /U\pp. 1110 :L19~;/,'.O08 & COllnec1.ect /\ppeals of Village Bhartllal IJ\.I\pp. No. ?CJ4j2010 & connected /\ppeals of Village I'i.iwasan [fl.,/\pp No lUIL.OID & connc~ct(!d :\ppeals' of Village Pocranpu, PilgC 3 of 29 - :. ~ 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 U\.APP.346/2010 i./\.i\PP.35012010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP.405/2010 L/\ .APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LAAPP.727/2010 LA.APP.750/2010 LA.APP.964/2010 LA.APP.77/2010 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and r\1r.B:r<:. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R..,2-14, 38,41-46,49,50-69,73,75,76) Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, ]\1r.Mohitrao Jadhav, and l\t~s.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Soianki and Mx.S.K.Rout and ]\/1r.13.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOL MLVirendra Singh, Advocate in H.-68, '7] & 72 in appeal filed by lU01 Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, lYkKunal Sharma and l\!Jr.Somer K .. Scth, Advocates for D'!JI!\ .. LA.APP. 1112010 LA..APP.49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP . .54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP.59/2010 LA.APP.70/2010 LA.APP. 221/20J (j LA.APP.223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LAAPP.2461:2010 ·LA-APP.277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP.284/2010 LAAPP. 285/2010 LAAPP.288/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP.294/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA. A P P. 3 1 3/201 0 LA.APP.345/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LAAP P. 349/20 J 0 LAAPP.351/2010 CA.APP. 352/2010 L/\.APP. 353!20 I 0 LA.APP.356/2010 L!\.APP.357/2010 L.A.APP. 3:~g/2()1 () LA.APP. 742/2010 LAAP? 760/2010 LA./-\PP. 359/='010 LAAPP.361/2010 L;'-\.APP.362/2010 LAA.PP.36312010 LAAPP.406/2010 . LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP 408CO J 0 LA.APP.438/)010 LA.Apr. 588/2010 LA .. APP. 7:~2/.201() LA.APP. 7241:2010 LA.AePY 725/2010 LAAPP. 726,1~:()] 0 LAAPP.72912010 LA.AP? 73112010 LA.APP 73212010 LAAPP. 759120 I 0 LA.APP.764/2010 . LAAPP. 828/2010 LAAPP.286/2010 Ll" •. ,APP.364/2010 LAAPP. 80/20.1 0 LA.APr.99/2010 & LAAPP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F.1O(30)96-L&B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 , L... . , f issued under Section 4 of the L~l11d Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No . . 28n002-2003,Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND I/U\pp. No 11~5/2008 1'" connecteci ,~ppeals of Villago Bhal·th,,1 J.i\./\pP. No. 2'J'1i)OlD & connc;ctc;n I\ppea!s'of Viliage Bijwas,lIl :.I\J\pp. No. '1 11/?OI0 is< connec('d t\pr(~als of Village p(Jcha~pL!r 1';1f,O 4 of 29 -:-i % (GRID-C) B§!:r;erved on: December 18.., 2011 Pronounced on: January. 06>-_2QLl:... ],A.APP. 11112010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RA1VI AND ORS. ..... Appellants Through: versus lVILB.D. Sharma, l\1r.S.K.Solanki and l\1r.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 appellantin LA./\pp.No. 6],64,65/2011) .!Vrr.Rajcsh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: ..... Respondents l\rlr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sania'! Kumar Pathak, 1\1rJ\1ohitrao Jaclhav, and l\1s.Navlin Swain .. Advocates for UOULAC LA.APP. 11112010 LA.APP.160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 254/2010 LJ\.J\PP.292/2010 LAAPP. 307/2010 LA.APP.395/2010 LkAPP.420/2010 LA.APP. 466/2010 I~A.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP, 660/2010 LA.APP.767/2010 LA,APP.919/7.010 LA.APP. 65/2011 L/\./\PP.120/2011

1./\ .APP. 476/2011 U\.APP. 523/20 11 LA.APP.536/2011 TV1r.Bankey Bihari Sharma, J\1r.Kunal Sharma and lV[r.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DD.!"'.. LAAPP. 154/2010 LA.APP.155/2010 LAAPP. 156/2010 LAAPP.165/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.APP, 21 5/20 10 LAAPP.248/2G10 LAAPP.249/2010 LA.AP? =~SO/20 1 0 LA.APP. 260/20 10 LAAPP.261/2010 LAAPP. 270/2010 LAAPP.293/2010 LA.APP,305/2010 LAAPP.306/2010 LAAPP.317/201O LA.APP.392/2010 LA.APP. J93/20 J 0 LAAPP. 396/2010 LA.APP.397/201CI LAAPP.412/2010 LAAPP. 43212010 LA.APP.433/2010 LAAPP. 434.12010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LAAPP. 577 /2010 LA.APP. 6351:201 () LAAPP. 639/2010 f_AAPP.640/2010 LA.APP. 65'1120] 0 LAAPP. 662/2,010 ' LA.APP. 741/2010 L;\.APP. 7581'201 (J LA.APP.768/2010 LA.APP, 784/20 J 0 l.A.APP. 9 J 8/~.Ol 0 LA.APP.1052/20]() . L:\.f}PP.6112011 . J,fj\..,~PP. 64/2QlL~r / LAAPP. 116/2011 LAAPP.117/201J ~9/2011/ / _/ LA-APP. 121/2011 LA./'\PP. 129/201 ~ LA.APP.42C)!2011 LAAPP. 485/2011 LAAPP.521/2011 LA.APP.522/2011 LAAPP. 525/20' J LA.APP. 526/20J 1 L'\.APP. 535/2U1 I LA.APP. 554/20J 1 LA.APP.59112011 IA/lrp. No, JJ.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lA/lpp. No. 294/2.010 & connected Appeais of Viliage Bijwasan 11/\pp No 111/2010 & connected IIppeals of Village Pochanpul' Pagr. 5 of 29 - :" ~ ~% (Relating to Notification No. F.1 O(30)96-L& 13/L/\/13417 dated [3.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'HLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL G/\.UR ORDJi1=lR 06JllL2(H2

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, therefore \;vith the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NO/If/cation No.F 10(30)96-L& B/lA/1 3417 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. ! Acquisition process for planned development of '[))!IJarka Phase-fl' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Not{fication qf } 3/1; Decenzber, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land ACeJuisition Act 189·4. ! . pertaining to vast tract of agriculttlral land in one com.pact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates ind-uding villages in questicHl, i.c .. Bharthal; Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

¶3Agricultural ] and of the appellants hereIn ill the aiiJrcsaid three villages stood acquired by the ReSp()J}c1cnts vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.2612002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award NO.30/2002-2003 granting compensation :l~ ~13 .82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field ---. with top soil) and @2 ~12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (vlitbout top soil).

¶4Dissatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acqull'tX1 U\./\pp. No.1 E1S/2008 & connected /\ppeals .of VillafW BharthJi. !/\.Jlpp. No. 29d /7.010 Ii, conm'cted Appeals of Village Bijwasan I J\.i\pp. No. 111./7.0108, connected /\ppeals of Village Poch~npur Page 6 1)1. 29 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 acretDr the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ <13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthd and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bh31ihal and Bijwasan is at the rate Qf Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants Qf Village Pochanpur have sought compensatiol1 at the rate of Rupees 'fhirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer? J(anwtaka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition (~lficerJ Gadag (Juui Drs., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjurad il10bd Dessai v.§'. State of (70 a and AJlllr. 9

(2010) 13 sec 710; Subh Ran1J and Ors ~)S., State ofllm:V{flfrua lmrd Anro J (20 1 0) 1 sce 444; Sanguntluula (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Spechllff rehsUdar (Land Acquisition) & Ors. 9 (2010) 3 SCC 661; Rmllvir SiP-u.gh and AnI', vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha lFaMra PlatU

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land /11cquisitiorn Officery JalrgaUJ>Ul1, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lal ~'S. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Ranw Nand (since deceased) fhtough LRs vs. Union oflndhu & Airilif"o, 2002 (65) DIU 1 (DB); Udho Das§ VSo State ofJlalfJ}{UWl & 0'#"'£'9 20]0(9) SCALE 41; Chakas VS'o Shde of PUll~jab& Off"S,y 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhav(ai lVaili ~)S, ,Sir/ate of ftla,huif"{Ij,"i,'i1trlf/!, (2009) 11 sec 1 71; Atma Singh (Dead) t/iJ.rough LRs and Ors liS. Stm!e ~~l Jlaryanll! & AnI', (2008) 2 sec 568; Vl/,P ,(C) No, 4143/2003 titled as Srnt. Indu Khorana vs. GralTli SabhCg & Ors! decided on 26.(13.2010; Special Land Acquisition Of/leer &: Anr vs. M.l( Rafiq Saheb y (201]) 7 sec 714; Thakarsibhai De~:iiblulji (,1nd O:r§ ~)s. Executive EngineerJ lJI.J\pp, No, :I1~'~)f7008 f< conrH!ctE~d Appeals of Village Ghil,'th,l' :.AApp, ~j(). 7.9 ff/?010 &. connected Appeals of Village Elijwasan ,il,App, No 1] 1/2010 & conn(~ctf~d /\ppeals of Village POchdPpur PaB-Po 7 of 29 -:-,1 GIUJiarat and Anr., AIR 200] SC 2424: Horryana State Jndulstrhu! Development Corporation, (2010) 11 sec 175; Risal Singh &: Drs. lV's. Union a/India.& Anr. y 2006 (89) DR} 527 (DB); Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 sec 769; General l~lanager~ OU and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Wi. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 sec 745; Valliyamma/ and Anr vs. Special fe/nUdar (Land Acquisition) and Anr .. AIR 2011 SC 2937; larmll TOlll1uimJ1l v.§'. Allahabad Development AutIUJf'i~y, (2004) 10 sec 745; lWahesh Dattatray Thirthlwr vs. State oj JJlaharashtra, AlB ... 2009 se 2238; J(apilMehra (M{~jor General).& Ors. Vs: Union of india.& Ant? 176(2011) DLT 361; \V.P.(C) No. 4284-12007 titled as Surat Singh jJ§, Delhi Development Authority & AffU', , decided on 24.04.2008.; (Jon Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors jJ.§', Ufftiion o.lIndia, (2004) 10 sec 627; Salpal & Ors vs. Union of india, (1997) I 1 SCC 42.3; LA. APP. 1',10.656/2008 titled as Sushi! l(urnar vs. Union of buliaJy decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed! RW'01 VS, Union of India, decided on 07.06.2011; and IBJuiile RatJn VS'. Vnio!tlo/1;nditfJIJ 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 tbat the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate iis potentialvv"hich 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 IV/r.R.S ,Tomar, counsel for appellants that Delhi-Rcwari-Jodhpur broadgagc raihvay line of Village 11iij\vasan passes through the land of Village BharlhaI, dividing j l into two parts, i.c., on the eastern side of the raiJvvay [inc is the tGl Airpon, Nevv Delhi IA/\Pp, No, 1'.,):,/2008 & CO!lncc:ted /\ppeals of Village Bharthai I /\.I\pp, No, :"1~/2010 & connected /\ppeals of VJllage Bijw,lsan l./U\pp, No. 11 :1/2010", connected /\ppeals of Village' Poc:hanpur -.. ----- -~- ---------_. ---._" ____ • ___ .," __ ,.. ---. -------.• -;-: .. -,-;;r-;-":;'--;-~-.~-, .. -.. -,.-.- .. --.------y-;-~--'--.. PaEC 8 Dr 29 --:) and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 111C(iers wide starting from NH-8 I1:om Sbiv Murti towards Dwarka Sup-City Part-I and Pmi-U again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI j~irport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bhartha1, Bijwasan and Sama1kha. 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 lGI 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 Village Bhanha! and Village Pochanpur vvere also acquired in the year 1984 lbr delh:~lopment of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dho01 Siras were -- aiso acquired for the development of Phase-H., Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizras/map to highlight that the boundary or Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhoo1 Sims arc contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by ]\.1r.B.S.1\1aan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the 1ight of its location and has illegally treated the acquired· land 10 be agricultural in spite Notification of 16th October, 2000 vide: which land use of the three: villages. in question was changed ii-om agriculturaT to rcsidenLlaU commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of "ViJ.lage Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 24 li1 October, ] 994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by lVlr.S.K.Roul, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two N01.ifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference CDurt by relying upon Po R[Unuu. liUlpp. ~'o. i:r95/:!008 & connected I\ppeals of Village Bha,thal .!I IIpp" No. 29V~O"lO & cGnneclea I\::·peais of Village Bijwasan lil.l\pp. ['o.lll/20lO & connected I\ppeals of Village Poch,lnpur ._j Reddi & Drs. lVS. Land Acquisition Of/ieery Hyderabad & Orsy (1995) 2 sec 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of HaJJJana & Ors"y 20] 0(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential 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 limited to a ncar future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to 311Y usc, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance 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 varied 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 COUli, because there is no basis to conclude lhat these sale exemplars are overvalued b(';c3use or any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Aff~ji(J!ni Ji,folru Dessai VS'o Stolte r{~l (Doa and Anr. y (20'10) 13 SCC 710, the average oCsale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to {57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, thcrcf()re, reliance placed by the Reference Cc)Urt UIJon the minimum rates/circle rates lor detenninjn~~ the L' market value of the acquired land is p3tently erroneous. - . I ] " Assessment 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 Gxcd by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the (Jovernmcnt fJr allotment of alLernate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in vicvv' the location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is iJ\./\pp. No. 1195/2008 & col1n(~cti2d /\ppea!s of Village Bharthal L\./\pp. No. 7.94/70.1.0 & connected !\ppeals of Village Bijwasan U\·;\I"P No. 1:lJ!2ClO & connr~cted I\ppeals of Village Pochanpu;· sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Poehanpur 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. ] 2. In the written synopsis, appellant --' Imp-Jlse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- a) "Ignores the acknowlecZgement on the part of the respondent about the Award /\/0.26/2002-2003 dated

23.JO.2002 being flcrwed in the course of the proceedings Civil FVrif petition 1'/0.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination of appellal1l dated ? 7.2007) /J) Does not account for the /C1.Cl that the Public Notice dated 18. 9.1987 adversely (1j~lected the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ltJas issued. c) Vahting the land on the hasis of the Letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the Governrnent of NationaL Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one (~llhe m.ore recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tah\'ildur, 2010C) SCC 661. d) Jgnores the evidence and other f(lctors which as per established law has to be considered before ascertaining the value of the larld under acquisition. e) Does not deed with di,sparity in 1,:olue of the Sale Deec{,s p;/oduced before the trier! Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special l£tnd Acquisition Officer, Civil /lpea/ No. 54 75 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supren?e Court hers speczjically held that .. Sale Deed showing higher rate should no! he disregarded in {!\.!\Pp. No. J l'J';/2D08 & connl~ct:ed !\ppeals of Village I3harlh31 Lil.!\pp. {'Io. ?94/2.010 & conncctc'd I'.ppeals of Village llijwasan L/I,r,pp. ~Io. 111i2010 & c'Jn~ecl"d /\ppeals of Village Pochanour case the average sale price is lower. Fu;~ther in Anjana .Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Suprewze Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A12006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the l11alerial H/hich indicate that the market value of the land is l'nuch higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ~ 13,36, (JOO in Block B in violation of the lcnv laid down by the lIon 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ranl 1'.'1. State of !{aryana 2010(1) sec 444. As a consequence, th<:; irnpugned judg'ment . . refi{sed to return an actual.finding on the issue ]Vo.1 j7'amed on 27.2.2007. g) L'valuated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corpo.-'ation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras .:1nd Bharthal H'QS changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries oj'DelhiState. 171e mas'terplan and j\lot{f/catiuns of Gcrvermnent few land i1se change shmv that in future land can be subjected to residential, cOlnmercial and other permissible uses. It l.yalso pertihent to mention that the appellant lead evidence' in respect ol the ? 4th anu.:'f1d.ment (~f the Constitution qf Inclta. lV. ej.· J. 6. J 993 IX A, by virtue of H)hich the AlunicLjxrJ COlporation Act }vas amended and the area }Vhei'e the land is situated, vvas deemed al11.unicipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected f;~om there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refi.{sed tp apply the lall' lo:id d01-vn in AIR Supreme Court 3467, RanvirSiJ'lgh and Anr vs. Union of india and refilsed to consider thejelct that the (levelopment in the area has a direct effect :;n the price that a 1'llilling purchaser H'ould pay/or the sU!7J'ect !c..'rzd (.). lcrnol~e"l t 71e fa" ct i l;, '7/' j';>(>",.-)nv·/1on l' . 7\ Tc' 7 nl 'lrf "11"0 "(') . v .1' " l.f"~ ... \.·~·~}r·1...)."L,I:'.1 JV'j. ,L-( L,L1, (,'PL .. I./\.App. No. J.195/~'l(Jil & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

1.f\ .. App. I~(). 294/1.010 g, ccmnc!cted Appeals of Village Bijwa.lan IJ\.!\pp. No. 111/2010 & connectr!d Appe,;ls of Village Pochan~·ur Page 12 of Z9 --:) auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ~2. 6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. j) The valuation of the subject land is even 10"wer than the pre-detennined auction rates set by Respondent No.2 for similarly situated land. /~) Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the lm~d was acquired for development purposes of' D1-varkc; Phase 11. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and cal11£ novv under the urban boundaries o/Delhi State. l) Ignored Notifications dated .1 6.1 O. 2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearZv establish the cornmerciaJ potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held that the purpose[c.)r vvhich land is acquired is 0 relevant factor. While detennining value of the pn)perty acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentialiZv to be used for building purposes in immediate or in near /zlture needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the bUildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the iand is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of heing put in better use as house sites ;17 the near jillure " i 3. In the brief synopsis by V cd Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have bel:B provided \vith a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of :..'\.!\pp. No . .l19S/2008 & conn(~ctcd !\ppeals or Village Bharthal ul..!\pp: No. 294/2010 & conncctc:d Appeals of Vi!lage llijwO]s"n I ,\.I\PP. No.1 :.1/2010 & connected I'.ppeals of Village Pochanpur " urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in Jand use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray 'JrhirthkaD' vs. Slate of1~faharashtra, AIR 2009 se 2238; KapillYlehra (IVh~im' Genera!) & 01'5. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(20 d) 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. to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of c0111pensation reflecting just, fair and adequate markd. value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals. 1 S, Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51 .. /\ of I,and Acquisition Act, J 894, a certHicd copy of the Sale Dccd is an admissible cvidencc but the samc cannot be. taken as relevant evidence [(,)1" determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of speciaJ fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village elc. atc also required. to' be considered and the sale instances relied upon by tbe 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 Ja7Ji Lad ,v~'. Union of India, 2002 (62) DIZJ 227, Satpai & Ors ~'so Union I~l India, (1997) 11 sec 423; La! Chand ,'!',.§', Union of India mnd .4nr'J

(1009) 15 sec 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushill(unuftr v§'. Union (~llndia, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be takeD to be realistic until reasons 1'or sLich sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller L/\./\pp No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeais of Village Bha,tha! !./\./\pp. No. 7.9/1/2.010 B, connected /\::>peals of Village Bijwasan

1.A../\;.>p No. 11.Ji?O~.O 8, connectedl\ppeals of Village Pochanpur

i)ag(~ 14 of 29 and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of tocusual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reilected in the sale instance of Radha Swanzi Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decisIon of Apex Court in Lal Ch~nd (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (supra) and Raj ISingh ( supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.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 land by the Government as on 1"( April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12~'~ per annum, market value of the acqui.red lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference COUll) as in Sushil Kltll!f1jllar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, i.t 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..ic]eting the enhancement by the: Reference Court while taking into consideration the appreciation (?P 12(% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in Jinevvhi1c granting appreciation @ 10% per al1num and thereby alJO\ving the cross·- objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17. Aftei' considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and UP011 close perusal of the Impugned judgment, tbe evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emen2CS is that the true market value . '--' of the comparable land is the price i)aid by \yilling purchaser to a willing l/l,!\pp, No, 11~,;/?008 ex connected Appeals of Village Bharth31 LAi\pp, r,lo, 29~/2010 & connected !\ppeals of Village l3ijwasan IA!\pr-', No. n:L/2ClO& connecl.c!d Appeals of Viliage Pochar,pu r Page; 1 S 0,1 2.9 ~: seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. Vlhile 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 COUli in Udlw Dass vs. State of Hmymna & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(0 the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its cOlnmercial, industrial, educational. religious or any other kine! of importance or because of its explosive population;

(if) the slritability of the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case mery be:

(iii) possibility of obtaining water und electric supply f(~)r 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 hig/nvays, puhlic' roads, layouts of building plots or developed resic,iential extensions in the vicinity or close pro:Y:irnity of the acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the .like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of' buildings, if'built on the acquired land: and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land ilse?l being in dehwnd ,FjJ~ building purposes, to spectfy afevll. "

¶18The potentia] ity of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of [actors, For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for 1 J.l\pP. No, 1195/7.008 & connected I\ppe,lls of V:llage Bh<Jrthal

1.{fl\PP' No 7.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwas3n l./("I\pp, No, 111/7.010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur P,lge 16 of 29 - ;. ~ which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent 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 Atma Singh (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 & Anr vs. Al.K. Rafiq SahebJ (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 10catio11, 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 c().mpcnsation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired laf1d.

¶20It is a well established propos ilion of lavv that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, lit is equally trw:; that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Coun in lUran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to \/;/ith a.dvantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyanunal (Supra), \vhile taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated' in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc, had held that deduction of 40~/'O towards development charges was improper. '(he pertinent observations made by the Apex Couti in Al1;jani lI'v!o!/Uf. Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:-I /\.lIpp. No. J 1SS/2008 & conncc!.ed IIppeals of Village Bharth'l: . /\.lIpp. I~o. 294nU 10 & con~('cted I\ppeais of ViI!age Bijw2san i/\'/\pp. No. ;.1 l/LOJ() & ~onneclcd fI.ppeals of Village, Pochanpur ?age 17 or ~,9 -;-! :-

¶22"The legal position is that even l'vhere there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, 1"1;fll be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands 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 tvvo sales are markedly d?flerenl, it can only lead to an inference that they are 1,vith reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under·-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequent~y averaging cannot be resorted to . . , It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in ChindJ-w Fukka Pati! (Supra), vilhich are as follows:- ;'1 ,,-,.J . "It is vvell settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the larzd under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situatecl in the neighhorhood of the acquired lands posse,ssing similar val-ue or utility taken place betlveen (J willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to rejlect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditimzs' ,:rre the real basis to detennine the lnarkel value. " Principles to determine the market value of the acquired land:; as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation JUd,

(ONGe) (Supra), are as under:- "Prilnarily, the increase in Land prices depends 011 four factors - sititation of the land, nature of deVelopment in surrounding area, availability of lard for development in the area, and the del11Gnd for lavzd in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect 0/ deve!opl1'zeni ifl the vicini(v, increase in prices would be slow, steaczv and gradual, without anysudden spurts orjulnps. I/\Jlpp. No. J JD:;/2008 & connf~cted /\ppEals of V;ilage Bh3rlli,d IA/\pp No. 2.94/2.010 & connected tlppeals of Village Bijwasan l./\.r'ilp. No. 1J li201()!i, connected /\ppeals of Village Pocha~pur P"ge 18 Jf 29 -- :- ~ On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, vI/here the demand for land is high and lvhere there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate. as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the .escalations in prices haw) touched even 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 hardZv an}' buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nomJnal rate of 1 % or 2% per annum. There is thus a. sign~licant d~fference in increases in market value o( lands in urbani'lel1'zi-urban . ./ areas and increases in market value of lands in the r1.1ral areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around haft of it, that is about 5~] to 7. 5% per annurn. This rule of thumb refers to the ,g-eneral trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear Lind specijic evidence relating to increase in prices. ~Vhere there are special reasons for appl_ving a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating f{) the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the smne. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value ofnearhy Zcmds jn previolls years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of an}' contemfJoraneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. 771e said method is reasonably sole where the reZied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the suh/ecl acquisition by only a few years, that is upto .Rnl1' 1'0 five years. Beyond that it rnav be unsafe, even il it relates to a rteiuhhourin's-r ./ -,; " . b ( land VVhat !nay be a reliahle standard if the g.-ap is on()' Cl feHi years, may become ttY/sale anC7 unreliable standard' l'v'here the gap is larger. For exmnple. f(Jr determining the market value of a land oC'Cjuil'ed in' 1992, adopting the annual increase met/lOci ~l'ith rejE?renCe to CI sate or L.'..I\pp. \)0. 1.1.():;!~00i1 Ii( cO!lnected ApP2als of Village 'Bhilrth2! !A/\po. No. 2[,lil/2.010 & connr.ctE'd r,ppeals of Village Bijwasan IA/lpo No. 111/2.010 & connected Appeal, of Village Pochanp'.ir P'lge Jl9 012.9 ! acquisition in 1970 or 1980 lIla},! have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart .fi"om the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. "

¶24This COUli is mindful of the dictum of t~-le Apex Court in lMcflff"Jl{lJffUIl State industrial Deve!opn1ent Corporation (lISIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods. What was said by the Apex COUli in HSTDC (Supra) is as under:- "VVhen d{fferent categories of lands (or lands with different situational advantages) are oequired/or the same purpose, sen' for .forming of ares idential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination qf their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and Cl uniform rate of compensation should be awarded fiJr all lands acquired under the same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bha1'th31., Village Iiijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solilary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of village Pochanpm-) i.e" the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Sll'ami Satsang. Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Vinage Pochanpur al a pn'2l:' which varied from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs: ]J2r acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PVv' .. 1I4 to Ex.P\V-I/l 0) vdlleh arc basically between one set of CO--fJ\vners and Radha .Sl/'v'ami 5'atsang, Beas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the conect market value of the land in the villages in question is the m.oot question \vhich is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, j .c., Sale Deeds IAl\pp. No. 1195/2.008 & conllected r,ppEals of Village Bharthal ,./\.I\pp. No. 2S4(i.Ol0 &. coniwcted Appeals oj-Village Bijwasan I.!U\pp. No. 1:11/20JO & connected I,ppecls ofVilliJge Pochar,pur Page 20 of 2.9 . ~ ! ;) (Ex.PW-1l4 to Ex.PW-1I10) indicate that its price varies from ~52 lacs 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 111 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 agricultura:l lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW·-l/4 to Ex.PW-1110) has not been brougbt out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purcltaser/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 pr:lce for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Svvami Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale Deed executed on 25 th l\llarch, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Sil'igh ps. Union of India~, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of \Tillage Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands. 27, In the instant matters, though the land usc 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 l.JI.l\pp. No. 1.195/2008 & connected (lppe,lls of Village 8harthal IAJlpp. No. 29~,!2010 & connected ,1\ppeals of Village Bijwasan UI.Jlpp. No. 111/2010 & connectr,d Jlppeals of Village PochanpuT P"ge ;!1 or 29 -:.j 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.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-IIlO) 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 of 2ih January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (l<~x.PW -] /1 1) was situated 011 the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.P\V-1111) 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 vieV\T 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 yvhethcr 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 111ark::t value of acqujred lands highlighted by Apex Court in iTS derision reported as Po Ram Red{(y and 01'5,'. P. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Developrnent Awthori(F Hyderabad and Or5'.J 1995 (2) sec 305 arc as undcr:- .. /2. llmiJever, in either of the said cases whether il be the deferl'nination o/the I1wrket value of the acquired land with building potentiality 'vvith re/erence to the price fetcheel by sale c?lplots in a welt del'efopeci lcl}'out in the neighborhood I/\'/\pp No.:J 1'):,/2008 & connecled /\pp(~als of Village Bharthal iA/\pp. No. 29<1/:'01.0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan : .~,.f\pp. ~Ic. 111//010 8, connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur Pilp,C 22 of 2'1 - -: ~ or whether it be the determination of the market value of the acqitired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becOlnes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched ?fsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary not?:t1cation under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, ·where no evidence of price fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then vvhat could be done is to ,find out the lnarket value CJ.f the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(j) ql the LA Act, according to the actual use to vvhich it was put and increase its vahle by a small percentage having; regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the ~asis of evidence to be made available in that regard. A . small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed }15th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only vvhen there is no evidence of sales of building plots in tIle neighborhood qf the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for building plots even ~ffonned in the acquired land. " 31, In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the 1)1)/\ after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in ,tal Cluuul (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold tands. Following the dictum of La! Chand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in J{d Singh (Supra) and Sushi/Kumar (Supra) ha~~ excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being 110t relevant for assessing the market value of [/\.!\pp. No .. l1.9~;/2.008 & connected !\ppeals of Village 8harthal !/\·!\Pp. No. 794/20J.0 & connecfed /\ppeals of Village Bijwasan It\.!\pp. No. 11.J/2010 & connected !\ppeals of Village Pochanpur Par,e 23 of 29 -' the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-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 argu.ed by IVlr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondcntlcross-objector 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-H, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escaJated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjus1i fled.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lal Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4~5 years and beyond that jt 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 fc,,,,; years, 1112.)' become unsafc and unreliable standard 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 ther~fore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate 'IAApp. No. 119:;/2008 & connt~cted /\ppeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 2.94/7.010 & conn(~cted /\ppeals ofVdlage Bijwasan I.A.App. No. J.l1.!2D10 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpGr ~ -;- j -" \ escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, leall1ed seDlor counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference COUlli has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation ~y 10% per annum. AfLer having perused the decision in Sushi! [(UI1Ulr (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court (~D 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land 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 Rcference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for tbe agricultural land by the Government Vii.C.f. 1 st April, 2000 tlll the date of Notification in the instant appeals dcserve~ to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's mInImum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural land by viliue of Notification of 24111 October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in tbese three villages in question 10 be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land usc of the acquired land had changed bLit that by itself is not suffici,.;nt to I/I.!\,:>p. No. J 19~,/2cicp, & conn('ct(~d f\ppe;lls of Viii age 13harlh;1I ill /\!JfJ. No. /..')1\/20l0 &. cO!1nC'ctC'd !\ppeals of Village Bijwas,m L!\./lpp. No. 111i20:!D & conll(:ctr:d !\ppeals 01 Viliage Pochanpur l'<Jge 25 of 29 -:j - :. ~ _ i 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 Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose. '17 .J , . Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification uncier Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 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 rost the year 1994, thcn appcllants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the lanel in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another saJe insta.l1ce of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1I1l) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Sa tsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (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. PW-1111) cannot bc treated to be sui11cient . QTound to !'2fant higher compensation while rclvinQ) upon the aforc~;aid o (.,:;J '" I..... sale instances. Therefore, in vicv! of tlle aiC)T . .>rcicrred dictum of Lhe. Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Deve/opn'U.ent Corp oJratio rU. (H,-S~JDC) (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to bc awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificgtion in the light of tbe minimum price ilxed by the Govenlment for the agricultural land in DeIhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to hig.her potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap bctvi!een what : iU\pp. ~Io. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BharthJI Li\App. No. 294nCJ:!.O & conneC\'(~d ,~ppeal~: of Village Bijwas<1n U\ .. ~pp. No. 111/20.10 & connect('d /\pp(~aisofVillage Poch2npu; Pose 26 of 29 - :- ~ -: would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been beJd to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this COUli in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! J(umar (Supra).

¶38This COUli is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied apon 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 rnatter of Village Bhmihal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out hom the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect :)f higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil and 13harat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bhartha1 and. there being a 100 metefs vide road starti.ng from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Pmi 1 and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference COUli. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid l,ocational advanta·ges, the acquired lands in question, cCJiainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of IJvvarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 100,/() increase ovel~ and above market val uc of the acquired lands· as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acqtJiJ~cd lands is the [f, l\Pp. No. 119:,j2008 B, connc,cted Ilppedls of Village Bh"rthal l/U\pp. No. 2.94/2010 & connc~cted Appcols of V\llagE~ [lijwasan I/Ulpp. No: 1ll/2010 & cO'lnected I\ppc,als of Village Pochanpur Pas!! 27 of 29 -:-) settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in ,Mirr,{ff Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "W-hen once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acq'uired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near .fidure, such conclusion would be sz4jicient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to detennine its Inarket 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 val LIe qua potential, and in vie\v of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instam cases, which persuades me to treat them \vith 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 tbe acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur arc treated at par with their counter-paris, i.e.) appcllants of Village Bhart.ha1 and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sil,fshU !(Uff1'Ulr (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% ilicrease ov(~r and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Conn in these matters on account of the aforesaid locations! advantages providing a higher building potcntiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals arc partly ~llowed to the ext.ent of awarding 10% increase over and above the market vallie assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village BhmihaJ and Villa~e Bij\vasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bhmihal and \lllJage B~iwasan:, the appeals of L~.l\pp No. 11.'?S/;(008 & connected Appeals of Village 8ha,-thal If ... /\pp. No. ~911/?010 & conrH'ctc,d J~ppealsof Village 8ijwasan cfu\pp No. l:U.i~01G & connected /\ppeals of Village PocfJanpur .-- --- Page: 23 of 29 -.-) the appellants of VillagePochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these ~::.l...,L.::·L'".c...." .. ,,· three villages in question is determined ~y ~16,SO,OOOI-per.bigb;~ fOir the ., .c.::.~.A:~'''l''2'....... t I!~}:"" ,,.-,.""'... ·'t·i . ....!I. I Category 'i\' land and @ ~14,69,600/- per Qigha for the Category 'B' r ;-~~~~------' lands in question. .cr \ 11'n ... , 4]. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in tht: judgment reported in Sunder V.§'o VOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing 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 the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the R.egistrar (Jeneral oC this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. January 06,2012 pkb IlI.!\pp. No. 119S!2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal L/\.f\pp. No. 2'J4i1JJ10 & conn(~cled !\ppeals of Village Bijwasan Ir,.App. No. 11.1/7.010 & connecled J\ppeals ofViIJage Pochanpur 1<'-'1" \., ( "' I l '\ I I.' """" (SUNIL GAUR) JUnGE -2 '( \ :,~J :,1"" /,«! I Page 29 of Z9 ;j 1'" * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DEJLlHlJ + LA.APP. 1195/2008 Q% RANBIR SI-IARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit l\1aan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate~ Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. ]'vIr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) l\1r.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for l\1r.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 Mr.Sanjay Pathak, IVlr.Mohitrao ladhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, MS.K.Kaumudi IGran, Advocates for LAC/UOI CORAM: Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, ~v1r.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR .9RDE~

12.01.2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For corredion}. This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6th January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice ;;;'~.'iI"':P'WBt;!!Ji!Ii:j!j!iltt·;mnlt!!Rlj,;;a;;;;J!Si'Ii5iI!P9l!l'ii'!!EFj·<jjliFJ<l~t!'VTliWF5'2i t;; AGffi7iI!1.·~M~·'\~!ID'lWI'T!'i3'JQ1 I'uza:;wsm;~~~~r~ LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 --------- ',~E=_~~~.J1~-=.~.=:·:.,=~,_'_, __ ,_,;- ~-'-:' . ..c........-_ ... .!' ... ------- - ... _._--- ;.j -;'j . .:' 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 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', yvhereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allmved and it is ordered"that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections bc carried out fortlnvith. [n vic\",,' of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. JANUARY 12,2012 pkb ..'_' :::~~::;;y;";o: __ ..-- '{~__. "'~~'--{SUNIL GAUR) JUnGE r···:"m-"IT~"NBI!!"t(rr?twtM!I?!1n!J!Wi:I"fS'1!'!E"&<Rffl¢WAd9il&o/c5'i!.l3!I!!!!BS!!!ja ~-'o¥f1ilFWmndF5'J'l">~'tm~·~lll~~!f;UE:er:m:!!!!lIlJ LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELID AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: December 18,2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP.119/2011 0/0 BIRKHA RAM DEC THRD 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.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for DOl/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR