Jagbir Minor Thr Lrs v. Union of India & Ors

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & A nr.'. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb • IN THE fiG!! COURT OF, IELffl AT MjJ DHH • Reserved on: November i 2011 Pi"onounced (m:]anu(vv0(2O12 (GRID-A) LA.APP. 1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHAR .1.A . Appellant I*hrough: Mr. B.S.}\4aan 1 .Mr..Aniit .Maari, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms. Sni ita Maan, Mr. k.S.Verina, MrJitin Tewaihia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and 1\'Is.Anita Tomar,.A.dvocates. Mr.Rohias, j\doc.ate. Mr. RagIiuvi ndr (iodara, Advocate • Mr.N.S.Negi and iVhJI.S.Rau.teia, Advocate N4r.S. K.Rout and 1\4r.B . K. koutray, Mr.M .Azarn Ansaii Advocates. • Mr,Panka Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajcsh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.])hanania y Mehiawat. Advocates Mr .H .S.1 aneL, Ad,;ocate Mr.!.S.Dahiya. Ad,'eca.: IVIr. Sandeep I hakhnr. A dvcate Mr.Atul I 'ripath, Adv OCale. .Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.II.S.Raiuela., (Ad\'neaes Jr • •. • respondem in appa is. tiled b y U Cl) versus t.JNION OF' INDIA & AN ft. :.... .Respodeni; ] hruu.h. Mr.Sanjav Podclur, en or A rii,oeate, wii ;V(r :S ... a Iathah, Mr.'.lo. itrac..idha' I\4s K Kaumud Ic ' r 'd (O( t kC *Jul Mr.Ajav Vern-, N43ecnasha\ .v Soiii. MrMu.ke ;h Kumar, Mr . K. etiii, i\!Ir.Pa\vnfl Mathw-, Mr. K unal Shai-m a. A dvoeaie id1' DD/\ •A.A PP 1 22008 &.. CM.No409/200S (Uioss-ObjCctiofls), i•.'VAPI.152/;2oc: )(i8 LA. \PP ,Jfl *1 N c 5* 00* /91 9 ( !,'Toss-C"bie( i A.APP.G9 7,2008 &. CM .No.4.3:/2uoo r;sOhjcet(ons): 1,;,\.,A 'P.701/2098 • CM No.51 0/2009 (Cross-Oh c1i' i' A I'P 7Od'20A I \ , 77(I2(fl9 w. 1 1 /03 coi'nccted i'ppeiIs of VilOgo BhrU,;I •".Arj&. No. ?94/201C & lorIil(o: I ed Appojis hf VIIso 3sssjri I i: !:rn Q & or,non. Appo& ol ViUsgo ocrsnu,ir '- [ A APP 771 "2008 & CM No 425/2009 (Cross-Objections) I A APP 77/2008 LA.APP.77312008 & CMNo.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.6 11/2009 (Cross-Objections); . LA.APP.775/200 LA.APP.776/2008; L.A.AP11.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & C11A.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; 1A.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.API, 798/2008 & CM No 615/2009 (Cross-Objections);. , LA APP 799/2008 & CMNo 931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.80512008; LA.APP.806/2008; 1,A.APP.8 13/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 14/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 18/200.8; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP. 820/2008; LA.AP]PS829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; 1A.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008: .LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA. APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; 1,A.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.95 1/2008 & CM.No709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA. APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; L.A.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.AP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986i'2008 & CM.No.572!2009. (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP. 1029/2008& CM.No. 1 '7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 103 1 !2(.)08 &- CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-01ections); 1 ;A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 ((..'ross--Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008;

1..,'\.APP. 1 04712008;LA.APP.1 048/2008& CM.No.785 1./2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420;2009 (Cross .-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008; LA.APP. 1 031/2008 & CM.No. 1 7262/2008 (Cros-Objectiohs; LA. APP. .1 052/2008; lA.AP]. 1053/2008 & CM.No.41 6/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APF. 1054/2008 & CM No.1766/2009 . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/200S & (TM .No.752/2Q 11 - (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 058/2008& CM.No. 1557/2011 (Cros-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2006 & CM.No. 1 7259/2008(Cross-Ohjetion.$); - LA.AP1. I 060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.A,PP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.62312009 (Cross-Objections);

1..A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1081/2008 & -CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1084/2008& CM.No. 17302,12('108' (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); 1.A.-APP. 10 8*17/2008& CM.No6 I 9/2009 (Cross-Objections), [A APP 1093 2008 A APP 1094'.2008 LA APP 109P0US

1..A.APP. 1103/2008 - & CM.No.441 /2009 (Cross-Objections);L.A.APP. 11 08/7008 & CM .NC3839/2009 (Cross-Objections'); I.A.APP. 1109/2008: LA.APP. 1110/2008 -& (TM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1.A.APP. 1111/2008; 1.A.APP. 1112/2008 & - CM.No-.383 1/2009 (Cross-Objections): IA APP. I 13/2008 & (TM.No.3826/2009 - (Cross-Objections); L-A.APP.1 115/2008; T.-A.APP.1 116/2008; LA.APP. 1 121 /200; LA.AP.P. 1126/2008; .LA.AP1. 11 29/2008 & CM.Ne.550/2009 (Cross-ObjecLons); - - - A .APP. 1130/2008; LAMP. 1131/2008 CM .No.56/2009 (Crss-Oborcti (Ills): - LA.APP.1 133/7008; LA.APP.1 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross -O'bjcc , loll s); I:AAPP. 1137/2008 -& CM.No. 1.7283/2008 (C'ross-Objections); LA..APP. 1. 140/2008; - LA APP 1156/2008 1 APP 1157 0U8 I /\APP 1 58120 fl8 & CM No 74'?009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1159/2008; LAAPP. 1161-/2008; L.A.APP.]1 66/2008; LA. APP. 11 6712008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1168/2008; - LA.APP.1170/2008; LA.APP.J 171/2008; LA.APP.1 172/2008; LA.APP.1 173/2008; - LA.APP. 1175/2009; LA.APP.1 178/2008; LA.APP.i 179/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008; I .A.APP. 1182/2008; LA.APP, 11 $3!2008& CM.No.6933 !2009 (Cross-Objections): APP. 1184/2008, LA.APP. 11 852008; LA.A.PP. I 1 86/2008& CM.No.701 3/2009 - - a I .4-App. No 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Pharthal LA Ape. No. 29/1/2010 & connected Appeals of V illage Bijv.iasn 1:-App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appea!s of Village Pocha,lo,Jr *age 2 or 29 (Cross-Objections),- LA.APP. 11 90/2008; L/ -Qü&; LA.APP. 1192/2008: LA APP 1193/2008; LA APP 1194/2008 IP1195/2008, LA APP 1197/2008; LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP: 1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008; LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP;121 3/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/200& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1241/2008& CM,Nd.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections).; LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP 1252/2008;

1.A.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; IJA.APP. 1280/2008; I.A.APP. 1281/2008; 1,A.APP.;1283/2008; LA.APP1284/2008; LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; 11A.APP.37/2009: LA.APP.39/2009; L APP 42/2009 & CM No 746i201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA APP 59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No71 0312009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.74112009; 1,A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/201 I (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009: LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 13:5/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009;

1.A.APP. 140i'2000; LA.APP. 143112009; LA.AP.P. 144/2009; LA.APP. 14:5/2009; LA. APP: 162/2009; LA.APP.1 87/2009: LA.APP. 190/2009; 1.A.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009, LA..APP. I 99i,2009; LA.APP.20 1/2009: LA,APP.202/2009; LA.APF. 203/2009; LA.APP.2(08/2009 & CMNo.702712009 (Gross-Objections); LA.APP.2 10/2009 & CM.No.970/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA:APP.2 11/2009; 1,A.APP.220/2009 1,2VAPP.222/2009; 1,A.APP.2231/2009; LA.APP.22412009; LA.APP.227/2009.,;LA.APP.230!2OO9 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24 1/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009; I .A.APP.249/2009; .1,A.APP.25712009; 1.A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; 1,A.APP;367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; '1-A.1-sP?.447/2009; LA.APP.458/2009: LA.APP.45912009; 1,A.APP466/2009: .LA.APP,480/2009 .LA.APP.48 1/200)9; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; 1A.A.PP.491/2009;LA.APP.493/2009; L/\.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009: 1,A.APP.506/2009; LA.APR507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.Al l P.509/200 t): LA..APP.5 10/2009: LA.APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP.5 12/2009: LA.A.P1 1.5 13/2009: LA.APP.56712009; I A APP 572/2009 1A APP 15/2010.-,LAPP 45/2010 1 A A1P 4APOIO LAAPP.4041/2010; 1,A.APP.13/201 1: LA.APP.1 138/2008; LA.APP.1 17612008; I.,A.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP 1201/2008.; LA.APP.23 1/2009 A (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)i'96/L&. B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the i,and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village 13harthal,Delhi) (G RID-B) • .•% .•. Reserved o/': December 08, 2011 i LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BLJWASAN) . 1)1 VI N1)1 R KUMAR App Hint Through: M.R. 'iomr, Mr.Virend.ra Singh lf. p p. I\rO 11195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Mud ial *Js.App. No.294/2010 & connected Ap peals of Village Biiwasan LA.App No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu Page 3o129 I versus 1301 & AN Advocates 1VIr.S.K.So1ai'iki and Mr.S.K.Rout and *13.K. Routray. Advocates for appellant (in R-214,3 8, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75 76) Respondents Through: Mr. Sanj y Poddar. Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr .Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UQI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr-B-K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI, Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68. "7 1 & 72 in appeal filed by U01 Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kuna! Sharma and Mr.Sorner K. Seth, Advocates for DDA. IA APP 11/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LAAP1 51'2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 •LA.APP. 55.2010. LA-APP. 56/2010 LA APP 57/2010 LA PP 59/2010 1 A APP 701010 .LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP, 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 22612010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 A APP 282i2010 LA APP 283/2010 LA APP 284/2010 LA APP 2/2010 I AAPP 287/2010 1AAPP 288'2010 LA AP P. 289'201u LA APP 201'2010 IA APP 295/2010 IA APP 296'2010 ILA APP. 313i'2010 LA APP 3420110 I A AP' 346i2010 LA APP 347/2010 LA.APP. 38/2010 LA. API 349/2010 \ APP 350'2010 LAMP. 35J.'-010 LA APP. 352,2010 1 A APP 353/2010 I A APP 24I201 0 I A APP "56/201.0 \iP 357/2010 LA./VP. 3"W'20110 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA;APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 I.A.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA-APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 • . LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.,APP. 407/2.010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 1..A.APP. 588/2010 L.A:APP. 722/2010 I A APP 723/2010 LA APP 2/20I0 A 725/2010 '1 APP T)16/120 10 IA APP 727i2010 LA APP 7291" 20 P) LA APE' 731/2010 1 A APP 712/2010 IA APP 750/2010 TA APP 759/2010 LA \PP 764/2010 LA APP 8 ''20]0 IAAPP 964/2010 IAAPP 286'2010 LA .APP. 364'2010 LA APP 77/2010 LA APP 80/2010 LA APP 99/2010 & L \ APP 75/2010 & C M No 964/2011 (CI-013S-Objections* (Relating to Notification No F 1.0(30)90-I & B/LA/I 4 17 dated 131 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

& Awaid No 28i002 1003 Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND No 1105/2003 & connected Appeals of Village BhrthI . . • S Po N 91/ 010 & (IC d I\pp5 of ViIiao Bijvvasan i\ Ap,) No. '11.1/201.0 & ' üfl d Appeals of Village ochaqiji Pape 4 of 29 /1) (GRID-C) Reserved on: December ]3 20]] Pionouncec/ on. Jan uaiy 06 L) 012 I A APP 1] f/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SLI TAT RAM AND ORS Appellants Through: Mr.B.D, Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solankj and • •... MrS .K.Rout; Advocates for appellant (in R-!6, 20 23 to 26, 29, 30 33 36 to 40 44 to49,59.63to71) Mt SB Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA pu No 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.R-esh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: 'N/-.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with lVIi dflJd1y Kumar Pathak Mr Mo1iitra • Jadhav. and Ms.Navljn Swain., Advocates for UOJ/LAC • .Mr.Bfl1e\' Biharj Sharia, Mr. Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K Seth, Advocates for LA APP 111/2010 LA APP 154/2010 IA APP I55/0I0 LA APP 156/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA. APP. 215/2010 I A APP 228/2010 LA APP 248/2010 1 A APP 249/2010 1 A APP 50/2010 I A APP 254/2010 LA APP 260/2010 1 A APP 261i2010 LA. APP 270'2010 • LA.APP. 292/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 305/2010 LA. APP. 306/2010 LA \PP 307/2010 IA APP 3l7,201u I '\APP 392/2010 LA .APP. 9i20i0 . JA.APP. 395/2010 LA APP 396/2010 1 AAPP 397/"010 LA APP 1/2010 IA APP 420/2010 IA APP 432i010 i A AP 433/2010 LA APP '4'2010 LA-APP. 466/2010 LA. APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 577/2010 LA APP. 635/2010 zV APP 63'2010 LA APP 619/2010 1 I-A AP 640/2010 LA. API' 67'2010 • '• LA.A.PP. 660/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LAAi'P. 741/2010 LA.APP. 758/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LA. . P. 784/2010 !.,A.APP. 918/2010

¶1A APP. 919/2010 L_ 52/201 ( 1 ,.A..PP. 61/2011 LAAPP. 64/2011 LA . A1:)p . 65/2011 LA.APP. 116/2(11 1 LA.APJ 117/201 L LA.A.PP, 119/2011 LA-APP. 120/2011. •.iji I LA.A1)1T 12 9 / 2 0 11 LA.APP. 429/2011 I A.1\PP 176 2011 IA APP 485'201 I I \ AP 2J/201 1 _A APP 5 'L_. '2011 LA.APP. 523/2011 LA.APP. 525/2011 LA APP, 526/201 1 . LA./\PP. 535/2011 • ; .. LA.APP. 536/2011 •LA.APP. 554/2011 LA.APP. 591/2011 I.A.Ap. No, 1.195/2003 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal IA pn No 29412010 & connected Appeais oIViliigc. l3qwasin \.pp No 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur. • Page 5 of F ^) I (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& 13/1,A/1.3417 dated

13.12.2000 isued under Section 4of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30ñ002-2003 dated 09.12. 2-002 Village Pochanpur,'Detlii) CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNILGAJR ORDER.

06.01.20,12 I.. Since the grounds , on which enhancement of the coinpensatEion is sought by the appellants in these bunch. of .appeals are ideritibal, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Noil/Icatlon No.F 10(3096-L& 13/LA./134] 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Vi iJages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

¶2Acquisition process for planned development of Dwarka P/ia... Ii' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Not/cai jon of Decei'nber, 2000 under , Section 4 of the Land .Acuisition Act 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricuitura! land in OflC compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue listates inchdi.ng villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur. .

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aibresaid three villages stood acquired by the RcspodcnLs vide three separate Awards, i.e.,.. Award NO.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003 ;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation 13.82 lac.s per acre for 13 oc.k 'A' (level field with top soil) and @. Z 12.32 laCs per acre. for Block '13' (without top soil). . . . . .

¶4I)issatis.fled with the assessment of market value' of their acquired I,

0.' I,.AApp, No. 119 10,008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal .li.App . No. 29d/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan ,t.A.App..No. 11 11/2010 & connected . Appeals of Village Pochnptir Page 6 ol. 29 )2 agricultural lands, appellants had sought i cfciencc under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned S judgment had enhanced compensation @ 15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ 13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages. Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas,, references relating to Village Pochanptr have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further •enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants ol Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at thp rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by r1ying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Ececuth'e Engineer, I(ar;uita/th housing Board vs. L nd Acquisition Officer Gadug and Ors, (2011) 2 SCC 246; Anjani Mo/u Dessni vs. State of Ga andAnr

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Sub/i Ram and Ors iSP; State of Harana andAnr,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthak (Dead) through LR. Vs. Special Tehsildqr (Land Acquisition) & Ors,(201 0) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, "s. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; C/md/ia FakiruPatil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jdguon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lal vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) Ilitougi LRs vs. Union of India & Anr, 2002 (65)1 DRJ I (DB); (id/ia Dac vs; State of Harpano & Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas i's. State of Punjab .& Di's,. 201 (9) SCALE 32; Avinash Dhaviji iVaiIc i's. State of Mthw-ahtra, ()009) I .SCC 1.1; Alma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs State of Haryana Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.((,) No. 4143/2003 titled as Sint. indu Khorana vs. Gram Sub/in & Ors, decided on 26.03,2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs, M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (0 I)) 7 SCC 714; Thaktrsihhai Dev/ihhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, AApp. No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthii .AApp. No. 294/2010 & coniected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No 111/2010 & connected A p peals of Village Pochanpur Pare 7 of 29 • Giqarat and 4nr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; 'Haiyw'a State Industrial • Development corporation, (2010) 11 SC(? 175; Risal Singh & Ors, Vs. Union of India & Anr0, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Chand vs. Union • of India thul Am, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, 011 and 'Natural G.s Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshhhai Jivwthh iii Pa/el 'and Anr, (2008) 14 sec 745;. Vaillyammal and' Anr vs. Special Tehslldar (Land Acquisition,) and Anr., AIR 2011 sc 2937; Kiran Tandon i's. Alla/uihad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mtthesh Dattatraj' Thirtlikar vs. State of Mctharashtra, AIR 2009 sc 2238; Kapil Mehra (Ma/or Genera) & Ors. Vs. Union of liuiia & A nr, 176(2011) )LT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs Del/il Development Authority &Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; 0th Prakasli (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union öflndià,(2004) 10 SCC 627; • Sa/pal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) .11 SCC 423; LA. APP. N6.656/2008 titled. as Sushil Kumci vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.201 1; LA. APP,. No.59,'2007 titled as Bed Rum vs. Uniim of India, decided on 07.06.2011; and. Bhuk Rum vs. Union of india, 2010 (, i70)DU1'71. .

¶6On the strength of the afbresbid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Ma'an. learned' arguing counsel for the appellants • that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first undersood in ordet to appreciate its potential which 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. •: • . . . 7 • ft was: pointed out by Mr.R.STcmar, co I, fbi' appellants that DL IIII-Re\vall_Jocthpul broad gage iu 'way line of Village B111\\ adii pa'cs through the land of Village 1harthaI, dividing it 111to two parts.; i e • on the castcin side of the 1 ad wy lii is the tGI Au port, Ne\' t)clhi 4J\.Aop. No. 11J5/2003 & connected Appeals of Village Bhariha /\.App. No ..29/20.1,0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan i\.ADp. No 111/2010 i connected Appeals of Village Pochunpur • °age 8 of 29 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub- • City Part-I and Part-11 again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where lOT Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm houses are located on the land of Villages 13harthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. it was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel 1:6r the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of . 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 }3barthal.. and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of I)warka Phase-] and the lands on the western side of Villages Barnnoli and i)hool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-11, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks si,zras/map to highlight that the boundary of' Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village I)hool Siras are 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 light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural i1 spite of Notification of 16th October, 2000 vide, which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agriculturat to rcsidentiai/ commrciaj/indus1.rja1, etc. and inact the entire land of Village Bharthai had ceased to be rural in view of the Notificstion of' 24 October, 1994,

¶9it was argued with much vehemence, by Mr.S.K.Rout learned counsel for the appellants that the atoresaici two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference ICourt b y relying upon P. Rama A.App. No. 1195,/2008 & connectcd Appeals of ViHage Oh art hal A App., No. 294/2010 & cor!noctoa Ar poak of Village Bijwasan A.App. No. 1.1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . • • Pee 9 of 29, ) Redai & Ors. vs. Lid Acquisitio; Officei, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors,,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must he adjudged keeping in 'view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition jithe authorities donot put the land to any use, it would nbt mean that there is no building ptentiáiitv,

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Shaj-ma learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done b y-the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legalpropositioj. laid down by the Apex Court in 4n/lnu ,Wolu Dessw i, State of ,oa ndAnj, (2010) 13 SCC 710, theaverage of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the llrnrkel price of the land which coiries to 57 lacs per acre and since th sale exem plars re1ld upon by the 'appellants .n c the comparable sale instances, therefore,reli'ancc, placed by the .Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates for detcrinining the market value of the acquired land ispatently erroneous.

¶11Assessment of market value of the'aquired land was sought by Mr.RGodara learned counsel for the appellants an the basis of the L&' IX) rates Fixed by the',Government and also on the ais of pre-determined rates fixed by the (iovernmr, for allotment Of alternate plots in the year 20002001 Keep'ing In 'ie [he location situation and poicnt1ahty of the acquired land, dcci 1nlnatnn of its nuikct valu is \.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeas of ViIlaF,e BhrfliI LAApp, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Viflgc* Brjwsan Ll\.App No. 111/2(.ii) & connected APPedS of Village Poc.hatipu l, Pao 10ol 29

2.5 • sought on the strength of sale exemplars. Q.f Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed - lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis Of the Pre-J)etcrmined Rates (PI)Rs) as referred to above. 1 2 In the written synopsis, appellant - Impulse India Private Limited of I A App No 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the • following grounds:- a) Ignores the acknowlegeinent on the part of the respondent about the Award NO.2612002-2003 dated

¶210.2002 being flawed ih the course of the pioceedvigs Civil JV/ii petit on Ao 19012 of 2006 (Re/rred to in cross-examination of appellah.i dated • b) Does not account jr the Jet that the Public Notice cia/ed 18.9.1987 adversely af ected the rates. of/and in the area /r more than 15 years bfore the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acqthsition A1, 1894 was issued. . ) Valuing the land on the as of the letter dated 1]. 9.2001 issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in., accordance with the lw4) laid • . down by various decisions. including in one of the more recent decisions of the J-/on'h!e Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildur. 2010(3) 8CC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and •he,' /ic/brs which as per established law has to h cHnslrIerej before ascei talnm(T • 1 . the value of the land under acquisItion. ' . e) Does not deal with disparity ki volz.i of the Sale Deeds produced before the ti-ic,! Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon 'h/c Suprene Court in the recent case of (hinda Fakira Pu/il versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil 4pea/ iVo.5475 of 2007. The • .., . . . lion 'ble Supreme Court has specz/tca!ly, held that Sale Deed showing higher rate sl'zo. t .,!d not he disregarded in LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & Connected Appeals of Village I3harthal • . LA.App. No. 2.9412010 & connected Appeals of Village lijwasan IA:tipp*No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochnour .. Iage 11 of 29 • case the average sale price is lower.. Euther in Anjana Molu Dessai v's.. Stale of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme 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. 97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the • market value of the land is mpuch higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and Z13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court iiicludiig in,Subh Rain vs. State of Harana 2010(1) SCC 444. As q consequence, the impugned judgment • refused to return an actual findiug on the issue No. I framed 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 Dhooi Siras and B ha rt ha! was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of. Delhi. State. The masterpian and IVot:fcat/ons of Government for land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential. commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention; that the appellant lead evidence in reJ.7ect u/the 741/1 a'nndmenr of the Constitution f India. lv.e.J. 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municifai Corporation Act was amended .and the area whe;'e the land is situated, was deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor - was elected-there. ]\/ Panhayat elections were held in the area.

ii) 1?efsed to apply the laii.' laid dmi.'ñ in AIR Supreme Court 347, Ranvir .Sii'igli and Aur vs. Union of india and refused to consider the fu m ct that • the develo eni in the area has a direct e/,jc i ,ii the price (h-if a iil/mr purchaser vi .'ouia pay j 1/*/c.SUf)j(L?(7 land.

i) 1nored the fact i/jul E c )/7 <P/.fl

No.. 2 had a10 lA.App. No. 1195j2003 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal . I.A.App. No 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwcn I.A'.App. No.111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . Page 120129 I. auctioned similarly sitii:cied .ind a: commercial blocks at the rate of about 2. 6 lakh and'concluded that the said land isWholly underdeveloped 'land D The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does nat take into account the possibility 6/ change qf the use of the land although the land wis acquired for development purposes of D'i'arka Phase H. it is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthai was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Dc/hi State. I) Ignored NOtifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. in Sangunthata v. Tahsi/dar

(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 it wa held that the purpoe for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the foci whether the land has got hlding polentiaiitj.; tO he used fr building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. in) The .presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied b y the buildings are to be treated 6.7.s house. sites. The ianci were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of* the /and is being considered as house site the adjoininv lands , have the potential of • being put in better use as house sites u-i the nearftilure. 13 In the bnef synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA App No 347/2009, the: factual details have beer., provided with a prayet that the appellants of this appeal he heated atpai with the co-appcfl ants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals Suppicmcnting the afoicsaid a1gLments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of A,App. No. 1195,2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LAApp. Nd, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur z. .7 urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in ll'Iahesh Dattatray Th:rthkan i's State of Maharashira, AIR 2009 SC 2238, Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors Vv. Union of India & An,, 176(20 1 1) T)L1 361 and that Pie-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct iiiarket value of the acquired lands I tu' enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fait and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals. 15 Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr.Sanay Pociar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51 A of Li n(/ 4quisi1ion Act 1894, a ceiti {Ied co y of the Sale I)ced is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence 'ordetermination 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 m property, p1 oxiity to the village etc are also i equn C (I to he considei i ci and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclOsing coitect in aikcl value of the acquired lands have been illegally ic1ctud by the Reference Court and while placing reliance u pon the decisions in Jai La! Union o/ India 2002 (62) DR' 227, catpal & Ors i's Llnwn of • India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; La! Chand vs. Union of india and .41iv.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769 IA APP No 636/2008 titled as S ushil Kurna, vs Union of India decided on 2609 '701 , it was uiged that sharp JflCICJSL lii rice in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic i easens tor such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal • lA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwsan • - l.A.App. No. 111/^010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 114 o 29 and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge o I f the usual prevalent trend in the market would ay such a higher pay as reflected in thq sale instance of Radha Swami Sàisang; Beas, relied upon by the appellants,, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adopti .on of L& I)() rates/Pre-I)etcrmjncd Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! Ghand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench pf this Court in Sushi! Kiünar (supra) and Rj Singh (supra)..

¶16So far as potentiality of tile land is concerned, it was urged by M.r.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior c ounsel 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 jst April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12 1YO per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court. as in Sushi! Kunuir (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 Coll and so, the impugned judgnent deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by th R.e11-ence Cowl. while taking into cons idcrtion the appreciation 12% per annum and the same deserves (o he brought ii line while 'granting appreciation 10% per annumand thereby allowing the cros objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival suhmiss,on; advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned Judgment, the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of (lie comparable land is the nrr p " 7/' I ' LJ A, !1.lI1 })W U.IIUSCI* to a willing: No. 119/2Q08 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthl • : . .t..A.App, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasan IA.App. No. 1.1.112C10 & connected Appeals of V2iagd Pocharpur Page 15 o12.9 ?J) scllr and the best evidence is the' comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated h' the Apex Court in UdIw Dass vs. State of Haryana & 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 which had been growing in size because 6f.its commerciaL industrial, educational, religious or any, other kind of importance or because 'o/ its eplo s'ive population NO 'the suitability of the (lc(JLurcd (and for puil ng up the buildings, be they / ecuienhlal, commercial 01 • . industrial, as the case maj, be;

(iii) possibility of obtaining waler and electric suppl) for occupants of buildings to he put up on that land,-

(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land.jbr building purpose; (v existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proxim ity, of the acquired land,

(vi) - benefits or advaniae,s' of educational ins tiiutio;s, 1 1ealth care centres, oi'. the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which mm he:ome vaiIabie to the occupiers of buildings, f built on the cquired land; and

(vii) lands ai ound the acquired land or the acquired laud iseif being in demand jr building pirposes, to peci) afev."

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building UF0SCS depends upon a large of factors. For the said purpose, the Couit may not only ha\'c 10 beai in mind the purpose loi • . * •*lA.Aorj. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of V3lage Bhurthal LA.App. No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village L'ijwasn . LA.App. No. 11112010 & connectd Appeals of Village Pochanpur • . - *age 16 of 29 which the lands were sought to he acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has .been held by theApex Court in Alma Singh (supra) that the exemplars of small pieces of land relied Upon by theappellants 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. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which ernrgesfroin 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 similarl y 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.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State w ho has acquiied the agricultural land foi a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of provin g inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant Fot this pitos lion the decision of the Apex Couit in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to i1li advantage,

¶21Apex Court. in Vailiyaininal (Supi-a), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc,, had held thai dcdL'ctIorl of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent ohse vdtions made by the Apex Coutt i n Anani Mom Decsai (Su)i a) deserve attention, which are as uider: l.AApp. No. 3155/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthst LA-App. No. 294/ 10 10 & connected Appeals of Vil!sge tlijwasan LA.App. No. 111/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village I*ochanpur "Ihe legal position is that even where there are several eemplais with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which a bona fide transaction, will he Considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose' range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be 'taken, as representing ' the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly diffri'en,t, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to,.

¶22It would he worthwhile to take note of the clinching obserations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands niade by the Apex Court in. Chindha Fi,kiru Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- ,It is well settled that gentdne and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proxtlll.ate to the point of. acquisition of' the 'lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing' vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between i'easonahle, prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value.

¶23Principles to determine the i na.rk et value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and J.Viturid Gas Corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on Jour flictors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding circa, availability q/' land or development in the area, and the demand/or lap-id in the area. In rural areas unless there is any pro.7)ec I of development in the vicinity, increase in prices 'would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden Spurts (2r/umpS. I...App. No. 3 195/2008& connected Appeals of V2lage Itharihal

20.Ap'p. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasari 'l.A.App. No. 1.31/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochar.pu "I. I 21 L^ On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high • and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas In soi-ne, pockets in big cities due to rapid development and high demandjbr land the escaatons in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, thu ing the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated fi)r ,kars or rose marginally at a no'mna/ rate 011% or 2% per annum. There is thus a sign fIcant dfference in • - . increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban r(?as and increases in marker value of lands in the rural • areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urhan/sem--urban areas is about 10% to 1.5% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be on/v wound half of it, that H about% to 7.5% pei annum . out in/c of thumb refers to the general (rend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and spec ific evidence relating to increase in /)rtces. Where there are • • . •.. special reasons for app/v in 1 a higher rate of increase, or any spec ific evidence relating to the actual increase in • .. . prices, then the increase to he applied would depend upon the same. Nornally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the ma, ket value by providing appi O1 late escalation over the proved market ia/i,e 0/ nea, hi' ianJc it, pm eviouc j'ea; s as evidnced by sale iransaciiozs or accjuisiiion, where there is , no evidence of any conlemnj7oraneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood ihe said Fn'iel•hod is reason afe w ably s here the rc'iled--on-saie tralls(ictions/acquisitions precedes the subiecl acq uisition by ul?ly a few yeai s that is z. no Our to fle yeai l3eyomid that it may be unsafe n i.f i1i relates 10 0 Itd*gl ll*UUl iug land What may be ci i d!Iab/L iaucicu d i/the yip is on!) a years, may become i'i'sa/e and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example. for determining the market value of a lout! U( .juii d in 1992 udopiin ' the al I mci ease met,cd ii d ii 1 / ence mu o so/c' a' LA.App. No. 1 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bh/irthSl • L//Ape. No. 29e/2010 & conndcted Appeals of Village F3ilwci:;ari • •• . • -, LA-Ape No.11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PocLianpir . . . •

Page .19 ,01, 29 - H • •' •.. •.. 2,5 acquisition in 1970 or 1980, iz*have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course o,f.years, the 'rate' of annuil increase may itself undergo di as tic change apai t /i om the likelihood of occurrence of vcfr7'ing periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase."

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryaini State Industrial Development Corporation (JISIDC) Supra), regarding computation of compensation tbr the aèquired lands by adoptiii comparative sales ethods: What was said by the Apex Court in I-ISTJ)C (Supra) is as under:- When different categories of lands (or lands with dffercnt sithational advantages) are acquired./6i, the same purpose. .7 1•

i) -ft)r forming of a residential layout, courts have soin ettmes felt that deiern'ijnat ion of their value with refirence to previous status or, situation' should he avoided and a uniform' rate of compensation should be awarded for all Ian I ds acquired under the same notification. Undisputedly, in these appeals sale cxeinplais in and around acquired )and of Village Bharthal.. \T o f fl ...................._.... .j. H! question are not available and the soliarv sale exemplartrongly relied. upon by the appellants is of Viilae Pochanpur i.e., the sven Sale Deeds vide which religious mstjtutiou, i.e., Radha Su.'ami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in ViLlage Pochanpur at a price \v1]ich varied from T52 lacs to Z .62 lacs per acre..

¶26. Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PW1 /4 to ExYW-i /10) which are basically between one set ot co-owners and Radha Swami Satsang l3eas in respect of the compact block ofland measuring 18 Bi.ghas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct niaket value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale J)ecd 4-A App. No. 1195/2008 & conhtected 4ppeals of Village Martha (.A-App. NO. 254/010 & connected Appeals of Village Rijwasan LA.App. No. 11 312010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur 'I -4c-- ........................................... developed lands No. prudent person, having knowledge of prevailing l.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal ,LA .App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 1u l2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

¶27In the instant matters, though the 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 PUfPOS till their acquisition. Thus, it . becomes evident that the acquired lands were not (Ex PW-1/4 to Ex PW-]/1O) indicate that its price varies from Z52 Lies to Z62 lacs per acre Meaning thereby; the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to ExPW-1/10) did not command the same tharket price. It was depehdnt.. 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 acqui.rcd .land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot he treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The spbcial need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PWi/4 to Ex.PW-i/i0) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agriculturaL land has not been. got examined by the appellants. Fiad the purciiaser/veridee 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 price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser,' i.e.; Radha Swami Satsang, fleas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale Deed executed on 2501 March, 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. 999/201.0 titled as Raj Sing/i i's. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in . the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar ,6f \J i ll 'ag Marnurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be Orated as representative price for the acquired lands.

¶4maiketpnce of the land in question would pay such a high puce unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration, and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale c' cmp]ais, i.e., Sale Deeds (1 x PW-l/4 to I x PW-l/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-1I1 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,7ô,55,l72 41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of 27th January, 2000, it needs to he' noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-l!l 1.) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed • (Ex.PW-l/l I) 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 he treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in • . question. 29 Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& 1)0 circular rates f the developed lands and Pre-I)ctcrrnined Rates for the alternate plots by the .DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value ol the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands Nighl.ightedh.y Apex Court in its decision reported as R Rum Reddv and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development ,iutlwritj; Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2)SCC 305 are as under:-

¶12Ilowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the nicitket value of the acquired land with building potentiality with ,ele, encc /o the price fetched by sale of J71o15 in a well dve/oj,ed layout in the neighborhood App. No, 1 1 112008 & c nierted.AppoaIs ofVilIe Bhrtht L\.App. No. 2941:?.01.0 & .connected AppcoIs of VilIgo Rijwsan .A,App. No. i.i.l!tOi.O & onnctod Appeals of Village Pochnptir ^X^_ H IEW or whether it he the determination of the market value of the icquid. land, with building porentiali1, with reference to the p1ice fetched by sale ofhuildingplots in an undeieloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price Jtched or to be/etched by the sales of plots in the layouts, relied, upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched if sold on the date oft/ic publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence of price fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of luilding 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 4(1) of the LA Act according to the actual use to which it was put and i;icrease its valze by a small percentage having regaid to the degree Of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 1151h 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 when there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of. the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, fr building plots even if Ihrmed in the acquired land.

¶31In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the l)DA after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and trans1erring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! clwnd (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-.J)etcrrnjned Rates in determining the market value of the idjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Cinind (Supra), a coordinate i3enc.h of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kurnar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant lr assesing the market value of A.App. No. 1190/7.008 & connected Appeas of ViIIge 0hrthiI A.App. No. 2941201,0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwsan No. 31.1/2030 & connected AppeIs of Village Pochnpur Pape 23 of 29 the undeveloped acquired lands.. Thus, I find .that the Refcrencè:Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for a1ltment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-I)etermined Rates •for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question. .32. Now 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 1,984 in Village Bhartlial and other villages for development of I)warka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, ].earned senior counsel for the respo.ndnt/cross-objector that even if the' escalation at the compounded rate of 1 O% per annum is taken from the year . 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervenin the Notification for development of I)warka Phase-i and the intant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-11, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore-,the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. 33 Aforesaid'argument does not holdgood in view ol the dictuh of the Apex Court in La! Cliand (Supra, cautioning thle Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment Of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 45 years and beyond that ii j-ia' be unsafe, even if it ielates to a ncighbouiing land What may be a reliable standard, i.f the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In theinstani cas, the gap between the two Notifications, Le-of I)waika Phasc-I and Dwaika Phase-11 is of sixteen years and I hei L foi e, it would be unsafe to adopt the I*ll odc of deter'ining the nlall\ct \ Tc1lC by providing appiopi ialc I I' App No. I 193/ 003 & connected Appeals of Vulipc Bha thu1 No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwsan LA.App. No. 1.1.1/2910 & connected Appeals of Village Pochrnpur [*ego 24 o129 escalation over the market value 6f .the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged ,' that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 1.2% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil Kuinar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acqvired 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 @ I 2% 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 he seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determinto p The market value of the aCqtj 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 Government w,e.f. I SI April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural laid Pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants hecausethe acquired land had cased to be an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 2411 October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. it is true that vide ah)resad Noi.ification of the year 1994 the land LISC of the acquired land had changed hut tiIat:by itself is not sufficient to LA.Ap. No I 195/200;5 & connected Appeals of Village I3hartliai l.A App. No. 10412010 & concocted Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.AP0. No. I Ia, 200 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur !36Y Page 25 of 29. 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, mierf the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Salsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act., 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been II Increase in p1-ice due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1 994, then -: appellants could have laid. their hands on other sale instances in the area' i-n 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 Sarnalltha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality oi. the sale exemplars of I? ad/ia Swami Sc//sang, I3eas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the co,tiguity of the acquncd land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Lx. PW-1/1 1) irtnot b treated to be sufficient ground to. grant higher compensatioi--i while relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the albre-ieferrecl dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State industrial Development (]oiporation (HSID() (Supra), un i foirn late ofLolnpcnatjn dcs -rvcs to be awaicled for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of tlia minimum price fixed by the Goveriinieiit for the agricultural'] and in

i)c.11ii, which generally . factors -in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what .A.Aop. No. I 1.05/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal . . .L;\App. No. 204/2O10 & connected Appealt of Village Bijwasmn .LA,App. No. 1 1/20.10 & connece'd A p pejs 0f Village Pochenpu . .. l'ee 26 of 29 would he expected to be the maikct growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kumar (Supra) andI find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken: by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and. Sushi! Kumar (Supra).,. 38: This 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 Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale Oxem plars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher pOtentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of i.he 161 Airport Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing 'through Village Bli.arthal and there being a 1.00 .rnetx's vide road starting from N....1-8 I'lon Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part 1 and Part II, divi.ding.thc acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm I-louses in the vicinity of the-acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of'tlie Reference Court. In the considered, opinion of this Court, on acoun of aforesaid locational advamaes, theacquired lands in question, certaiily assume higher building potentialitv'hei'ng in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-i. What persuades this Court to grant l0'i increase ove.and above niarkel: value of the. acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquifed lands is the :H 5& f App. No. 11.95/2008 8, connected Appeals of Village Bharthal .AJ.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of V2lge Itijwasan I.A./\pp. No: 1.11/2030 & connected Appeals oi*Villege Pochanpor *age 7 of 29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Coui't in Mirza Nausherwn Khan vs. CoiIecto, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- 5^ once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility, of the acquired land being used/or putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such onclusion would be sufficient to hold 1! cit the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality.

¶39Considering the fat that it would be very difficult to provide a' definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness ca n never be achieved in the matters of assessig 1ir compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to ii eat them with equvalonce by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for 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 with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village. Bharthal and • . . . Village Bijwasan. However, while rel ying UOfl the decision in Suslill Iuinai (SLipla), I am inclined to giinl I0°/ IflIeac over and above th marketvalue of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Curt in • . . these matters on account of thi' afrrcsaid locational advantags providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question. .P• Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters peIaininr "to Village BhaiThaj and Village' Bijaan While the appJlants of Vil 1age Pochanpui at pal with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of L\.App No, ,.i1.95/2008 & corinecird Appears of Village Bharthul lJ\,App No. 29/,O1fl & connoctcd Appeals of Village Bijwasarj A.App No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l,ochanpur ,age 23 of 29 All the appeliabs of Village. Pochanpur are also; allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined @ 16,50,000/- per bi.gh4 for the ... Category 'A' land and 14,69,600/- per big-ha for the Category 'B' lands in question. I'1\

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, slalutol\ hLncflts as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in, Sunder vs.. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 arc granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal for which period of delay no interest pn the enhanced compensation shall hc peid I hese appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs

¶42The above captioned appeals and crossobjections are disposed of in the aloi esaid tei rns with direction to the Registry to 1-emit, the Compensation amount if any, deposited by either hide with the Registrar Gel ci al o this Court, to the concerned Reference Court i)ecree sheets he accordhi go l y prepared. (SUNIL GAUll) JUDGE January 06, 2012 • pkh - • c.., •7I

¶2.e • No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal .A.App. Nb. 294/2010 & connected Appeals 6f Village Bijwasan A;App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village P o c h a n p u r Page 29 0129 ': 13, ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA APP 1195/2008 • iANBIR SHARMA Appellant • Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms Smita Maan, Mr R S Verma, Mi fllin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate; • Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.'Jegi and Mr.H.SRaute1a, 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 UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tmar, 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 Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UQI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Arnita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunai Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON3LE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 • G.M. Appi, No. 752/2012 (For correction). • • • • This is an application for seeking typographical correction in • Order of 6 January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice • -• -. ________________________________________________________________________________________ • LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 of the application. Advance copy of thi application has already been given to rernainthg counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pdinted o.ut by the respondent in the decision of 6111 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compenatjon assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not 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 no: 40 of .UA.AppNo. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be c,arrled out £rth with. In view ofT the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. ......................... ç UNIL GA.U.R) JANUARY 12, 2012 JUDGE. pkb LAAppNo. 1195/2008 . . . Page 2

(6D- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 JAGBIR MINOR THR LRS Through Appellant 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) LA.APP. 116/2011 Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanj ay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: 0-/0 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR