Balraj Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

29.03.2012 CM No. 5424/2012 (u/S 151 CPC) Delay of 691 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal is sought to be condoned by this application, which is supported by affidavit of learned counsel for the appellant. Upon Notice, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates for respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively, state that only opposition to this application is that for the period of delay, the appellants ought not be granted interest on the compensation amount in the event of their succeeding in the appeal. Since the reasons disclosed in. Paragraph No. 3 of the application does not display gross negligence, therefore, this application is allowed and the delay of 691 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned while making it clear that for the delayed period, the appellant shall not be granted interest in the event of succeeding in the appeal. LA.APPNo.83/2012 Page 1 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. With aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of LA.APP. 83/2012 The instant appeal relates to Village - Pochanpur, where vide Notificationof 13^*^ December,2000, the land of the appellantstood acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the ReferenceCourtvide impugnedorderof 23^^ November,2009 while upholding the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to the appellant, has denied any enhancement thereupon. Mr. SanjayKumarPathak,learnedcounselfor the respondent-UOI, states that the subject matter of this appeal stands covered by the decision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008 'Ranbir Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr.' rendered on 6^^ January, 2012, wherein compensation amount in respect of lands acquired in Village Pochampur has been enhanced to ?16,50,000/- per acre for the Category 'A' land and to ?14,69,600/- per acre in respect of Category 'B' lands. Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that case of the appellant is at par with Ranbir Sharma (Supra). In the light of above, this appeal is allowed in terms of decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra) with statutory benefits and proportionate costs, while declining the interest for the delayed period. This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. MARCH 29, 2012/rs NIL GAUR) JUDGE LA.APPNo.83/2012 Page 2 % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N^.W DELHI ' Rese'rved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) R/VNBIRSHARA4A Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Arait Maail, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Adyocate Mr.lSI.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Roi|itray,Mr.M.Azam-Ansari, Advocates. . I I Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate i Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla., Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, AdA^ocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate , • Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Raijtela,(Advocatesfor respondent in appeals filed by UOl) versus LMION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdyocatewithMr.SanJay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao .Vadhavgnd Ms.Navlin SAvain, Ms.K.KaurnudiKiran,Advocktesfor LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Setiii, Mr.?a\'(' Sharma. Advocate for DDA 'an Mathur, N4r.Kunal ,452/2008;

1.-A.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& CM.No.5990/2010(Cross-Obiections)', LA.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP,701/2008& LA.APP.4I2/2008 CM.No.4096/2008 rCross-Oljjiections);LA.APP,452/2 La.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& CM.No.5p90/2010(Cross-Objectic CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objectionsj; LA.APP.7(:8/2008; LA.APP.770./200K: i.A.App.No. liy.S/2C0«& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal 1(X.App. No. ?.9':/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwaian IA.App. .No. 111/P.030& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 1 o1 2!) LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objactions); LA.APP.772/2008' LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP774/9008& (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.77^72008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections)- LAAPP783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008;LA.APP.7b/i008;LA.APP7^08 i' CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.799/2^08 & CM No 931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.8'06/2008;LA.APP.813/2008& C^4.NoJ795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM No 806/2009 LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP^.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008-A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP,832/2008; LA APP 833/2008-LA.APR844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APP.873/i008 & CM No 779/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/^008; LA.APP9^^; CM.No.709/2009 LA.APP.974/2008 LA.APP.1075/2008: LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM,No.4 &^CI^^^L°9T4^8°/900^CM.NoJ7302/2008(Cross-Objecfiions;;LA.APP.]086/2008 fr ^'^;^^°--448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.:iD87/2008& CM.No619/900O LA.APP,1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008-CM No 383^9^0 ^(Cross-Objscti|)ns);LA.APP.l108/200.8& CMNrLA.APP. 1109/20|08; LA.APP.J110/2008 & CM No38?i -onq LA.APP.1111/2(508;LA.APP.1112/2008& OK ^ ^ (Cross-Objectio.as);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 v^ioss-Objections);LA.APP.1115/2008; LA.APP.1116/2008-I '\ APP I]91/9r)nP-LA.APP.1129/2008 &, CM.No.55(^/2009(Cross-Obiiyuonsl' LA.APP.1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections•• -.A.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.1135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-ObectionsV LA.APP.1137/2008&CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-ObjectLns)-LA Sp LA,APP. 156/2008;LA.APP.1157/2008;LA.APP.1158/2|008& (C ross-Objections);LA.APP.1159/2008; LA.APP.1161/2008-LA AP^ 11 r.,^nnni CM-No.802/2009-(Cross-Objections)-IAAPP 1168/2008-lA..'\pp No. l.l95/7,00cS&connectedAppeal.'!ofVillageBharthal ' ' i • ' i.A./\,c.p..No. M4/20I.0& corinccledAppealsofVillageBijwasan .• -A.App. Mc. :i1.1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' I I PaEK 2 ol29 , . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Obje '2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APR976/2008;LA.APP:9W20oirLAAV7w^^^^^^ '"'cMN^S^MOW (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP. 1029/20rt8& CM.No 17340/2008 LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Obiections)- ^ CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP 1046/2008-LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008cfeCM,No.785l/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV ^ CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008" Tx ^ CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-Obje'ctions);LA.APP.1052/2008-CM No 176^2009^0 1^^2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APp'.1054/2008& (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.10S7/2008& CM.No 752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1C58/2008& CM No 1557/9()m LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.17259/2008(Cross-ObiectionsV La.APP.1060/2G08;LA.APP.1062/2008 cS: CM.No54^/2009 (Cross Ob ect^nnj- ,LA.APP,_.073/2008;LA.APP.,074/2008&CM.N0.62S9[Soss'objeS:::-:,'; 52/2009(Cross-Object.ions); ;tions); LA.APP.]086/2008 LA.APP.II90/2008; LA.APP,n9I/2008-LA.APP 11 <)?/9nn!t I '"^•APP. 1194/2008;LA.APP.1195/2008'LA APP l197/2008 ['a'add CM.No.6935/2009(Cros.s-ObjeStions)''LA APP POO/^OOS LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.I203/2008;LA.APP.12|So8-LA APP nJwflOS CMNo695S9fCro'^''^oT''^ CMNo384?200Wr ^ LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& r LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP 1252/2008-LAAPP%Xff CMNVrf" l1aPp:59;20«: LA.APP.79/200rLA.ApS2009T LA.APP.,08/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.AP^l'lZ! S^SpS^of LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.162/'2009; LA.APP.197/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; , LA.APP.198/2009; i.AA.fTi99 LA.APR202/2009;LA.APP.203/2009;LA.APP.20.k/2A09& (C ross-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009& CM.Nn 97b/2011 ..A.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP•-•22/2009' LA.APP.224/2009;LA.APP.227/2009;LA.APP.230/2d09& TA LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009-LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009-LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009-LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009-LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP,490/2009,' LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; /\rr .q-D/yuio LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; LAAPWrnXs LA.APP.1177/2008;LA.APP.1201/2008;LA.APP.23i/2c|o9' LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP.14Y2009; LA.APP.190/2009; LA.APP.199/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.A.PP,447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/[2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP.139/2009; LA.APP.145/2009; LA.APP.191/2009; LA.APP.201/2009; CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.481/2009; .LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.506/2009; LA.APP.510/2009; LA.APP.567/2009; LA.APP,48/2010; LA.APP.I]76/2008; (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 ^ of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No 26/^002-^003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Deliii) % (GRJD-B) Reeved on: Decemhpr 08. 2011 Prgmuncedon: January'oe.2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) Dl^VENDER KUMAR Through: lyvApp Mo. :i,i.qV2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal l'...\pp.No. 234/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ••i."5n-in o. - t - . Mr.R.S.Tomar, •• ui village bijwasan -App. No. Jn/2010&connectodAppealsof VillagePochanpur Appellant /^irendraSingh versus UOI & ANR LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. Advocates' Mr.S.K.Solanki ind Mr.S.K.Roiit and Mr.B.K. Routra}, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) 11/2010 53/2010 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.AR^^ LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. Respondents Through: Iv-lr.Sanja}'Pdddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayKilmerPathak, Mr.Ad^ohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.ljvlavlinSwain, Advocates fbrUOI/LAG Mr.S.K.Solanki Mr.B.K.Routray], filedby UOL^; Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appe|alfiled by UOI Mr.Banlcey Bihar Sharma., Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. ind Mr.S.K.Rout and , Advocates in appeals 49/2010 5:4/2010 59/2010 223/2010 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 725/2010 7B1/2010 764/2010 364/2010 9^/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & C.M.No.964/2011 (Cross-ohjectiqns) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/i3417 dated 13,12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionijVct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003; Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND IA.App. No, 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 29.1/?.01C& connacted Appeals of Village Bijwasan 1A.App. Wo. .111/2010& connected Appeals of VillagePochancur % (GRID-C) Reserved on: Dp.r.p.mber18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEPIAJRAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.S.K.Solanld and Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16,20, 23 to 26, 29,30, 33,36 to 40, 44 to49, 59, 63 to7l) Mr.S.B.Kumar,^i.dvocatefor appellantin ' ^ '4,65/2011) Advocatefor appellant versus LA.App.No. 61, t Mr.Rajesh Yaeiav in R-22) UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Mr.Sanjay Pod'dar, Mr-SanjayKu]|arPathali,Mr.Mohitrao Respondents Senior Advocate with . 111/2010 160/2010 .228/2010 . 254/2010 .292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 • 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/201] 523/201 r 536/201] LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. Jadhav, and MiN forUOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma and Mr.Sc for DDA. t 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 • 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 la'.app LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP^ LA.APP. LA.APP-, LA.APP, LA.APP.

1..A.APPh: ivlin Swain, Advocates Sharma, Mr.Kunal mer K.Seth, Advocates 55/2010 09/2010 '19/2010 51/2010 35/2010 2/2010 3^7/2010 433/2010 .577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 7S4/2010 6li/201] 11|7/20]1 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. '. 156/2010 '.215/2010 .250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010

918./2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 |/.App.No. .1:35/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA-App.AO. 2.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. I1I/2OIO&connectedAppealscfVillagePochanpur Page 5 of '10 % (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Land ^acquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,\^illagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR ^ ORDER

06.01.2012 I. Since-the grounds on which enhancement sought,by the'appellants in these bunch of of the compensation is appeals are identical. thereforewith the consentoflearned counsel fcr the parties presentat the healing of these appeals, these bunch:of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bhcrthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this common

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planned developmi ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance c December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisrion/.ct, 1894, 1 one compact block villages in question, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land i comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includin i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide order. 3nt of 'Dwarka Phase-f Notification of 13'" in the aforesaid three :hree separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward No.3d/2002--2003granting compensation@ •Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and g ?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withoutop soil). . j I

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketValue oftheir acquired I I I.A.App.Mo. 1195/2U08&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App, No. 294/?,010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur .82 lacs per acre for agricultural lands, appellants had sought refere.ice under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Referen Judgment Had enlianced compensation@ ?15. appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' andi@ their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelating to Village Pochanpurhave been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasai ce Court vide impugned 00 lacs per acre for the ?13.36 lacs per acre for compensation sought by 1is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellantsof Village Pochanpurhave sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs the precedents in the shape of decisions i;: Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag ami Ors., (2011)2 see 246;Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Am.,

(2010) 13 see 710;Subh Ram and. Ors V5. StaiteofHaryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) ihr.9ugh LRs. Vs. Special I Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 See 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira PatU

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass V5. State SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji'Naik V5. State 3er acre by relying upon 1 Executive Engineer, Jnion ofIndia & Ann, of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas V5. State of Puhijah & Ors., 2011 (9) if Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, No. 4143/2003-titled as decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand'AcquisitionOfficer Anr vs!mK.Rafi.qSaheb, (2011) 7 sec 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors i's. Executive Engineer, 1A.App No. 119.')/2.008& connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lA.App. No. ?.9'1/2010& connectttdAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. U1/2010& connected Appealsof VillagePochanpur V. Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial > DevelopmentCorporation, (2010) 11 SCC VI5\Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia&Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DjB);LaiChandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCG 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. RamesMh Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValUyammaland A ai Jivanhhai Patel and nr Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development.Authority, (2004) '.t Dattatray Thirthkar ra. State of Makarashtr Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. L 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 SCC 745; Mahesh a, AIR 2009 SC 2238; '^nion of India &. Anr, itled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal d Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423;.LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleR.am vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguingcounsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentmthe area over a periodof time and the same cannot be limited to the near fiiture alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar, coiinsel for appellants that Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway lini of Village Biijvvasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,^di i.e., onthe easternside of the railwayline is the u^,/'.pp,No. 1195/2008St connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal iA.App. No. 294/2010& connGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur /iding it into two parts, IGI Airport, Nev/ Delhi and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarkaSub- >! City Part-I and Part-II again divides the'agriculturalland into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI. Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFami'.Houses are located on the land of VillagesBhaithal,Bijwasanand Sama out by Mr.S.K.Solardd learned counsel for the kha. It was also pointed appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first aiquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBhaithaland also acquiredin the year 1984 for developme.n1 the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phas(;-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/m2cpto highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and A contiguous. '•! i.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan appellants that the Reference Court has fa potentialityof the acquired land in the liglit illegally treated the acquired land to be a Notificationof 16"" October, 2000 vide which villages in question was changed from, agri in the year 1980 for the year 1982 for Bharat Village Pochanpur were of Dwarka Phase-I and illage Dhool Siras are , learned counsel for the led to appreciate the of its location and has picultural in spite of land use of the three cultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireiknd ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin view of theNotification

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo wrongly discarded by the Reference Court % lA.Apn.|\J0. .1195/2008a tonnectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •' i.A.App.No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan l..\,App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur of24'''October,1994. .Mj-.S.K.Rout, learned Notifications have been •elying upon P. Mama: Page 9 of .29 CM-) Reddi& Ors. vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer^Hydzrabad <& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the ^Lpex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired l^nd must be adjudged r a period of time and Iceepingin view the development in the area over the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,if the authoritiesdo not put the lan^ to any use, it wouldnot mean that there is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from: merely because of the said variation, these sale 2 lacs to ?62 lacs and exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageof sale taken as representingthe market price of the lane exemplars ought to be which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsreliedipon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances,- therefore, re ReferenceCourt upon the minimumrates/circlejat marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentofmarket value ofthe acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantso DO rates fixed by the Goveniment and al; determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor Allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the Ij^cation,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationJf its market value is LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. ?.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur iance placed by the 3s for detenriining the 1 the basis of the L& on the basis of pre- \V-sought on the strength of sale exemplars of VillageSamalldiaor alternativelyon the basis o: developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto abovl.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-Impul of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the im following grounds: a) igjiores the achiowledgementon Village Pochanpur and the L& DO rates of the the basis of the Pre-se India Private Limited pugned judgment on the the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/20G2-2003dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the proceedings Civil Writ petition No. (Referred to in cross-examinationof

7.7.2007) course of the 19012 of 2006. appellant dated b) Does not accountfor the fact that tl dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe the areafor more than 15years before the Notification under Section5 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. I c) Ialuing the land on the basis of the letter dated National Capital >vith the law laid one of the more e Public Notice rates of land in

11.9.2001issuedby the Governmentof TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordance down by variousdecisionsincludingin recent decisions oj the Hon'ble 'Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfacto?i. establishedlaw has to be considered'beforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwherea'^as per the laM> establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recent case ^of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Suprem.e Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot b\ disregardedin s which as per l-A.App.No. 1,195/2008&connccledAppealsof VillageUharthal I-A.Adp. No. 294/2010&connectGdAppealsof VillageBljwasan iV-.App.No. .1.1.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur case the average sale price is lower. Molu Dessai v^. State of Goa, 2010^ Supreme Court has also held that \he highest of the exemplars and not by averaging'of different,tjpes of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon ,f> Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject landwhile igjwringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe land is much higherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockAand113,36,000in BlockBin violation of the law laid down by the Horyble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of\Har}?ana2010(1) see 444. As a consequence, the mnugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No.l framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturallend although vide ^Qtificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of .Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changedand these areas ceasedto bd agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in futi subjected to residential, cominerc permissibleuses. It is alsopertinentto uiui. um appellantleadevidencein respectofth^ 74"" amendment of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the lanA is situated, was deem.eda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was electedfrom, there. No Panchaydtelections were held in the area. i I h) Refused to apply the laM> laid doWn \in. AIR Supreme Further in Anjana '13) see 710, the a certan land. re land can be 'ial and. other mention that the Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs o ' uj inULU and refusedto considerthefact that the developm.entin Union of India the area has a directeffect on the pri^. purchaserM^ouldpayfor thesubjectland. •e that a yvillin^

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal l.A.App.Mo, 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur "•"N. auctionedsimilarlysituated land as . at the rate of about X2.6 lakh and Cut saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland. ommercial blocks jncluded that the j) The valuationofthe subjectlandis even lowerthan the pre-delennmedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2 Jor similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthepossib the use ofthe land althoughthe land development purposes of Dwarka reiteratedthat the land use of Village Bharthal was changed and these 'are agriculturaland came now under the u ofDelhi State. 'lit}^ of change of was acquired for Phase It is Dhool Siras and as ceased to be 'ban boundaries I) IgnoredNotificatiop.sdated16.10.2000and 24.101994 although they clearly establish the commercial ^^ngunthala v. Tahsildar (La.), (2010) 3see 661 itwas heldtha^ ^hich land is acquired is a releval jactor WHile eerminmg va/ue of the property acquired the fact tr huiif' ^""'''"SPotentfalityto be 'used jor buildingpurposes in inimediateor needs to be considered. thepurposefor t factor. While in near future m) ne presenceof a number of building, on the lands blZ , ''""S °^<=med by the uildmgs are to be treatedas house sites. Tire lands quartas As aportionofthe landis beingconsideredas house sne. adjoininglands have tie potentialof beingputin betteruseas housesitesin tbl'enearfuture.'

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and othejrs of LA. App No 347/2009,the fact™] detailshave been providedWith aprayerthat ti,= appellantsofthis appeal be treatedat par withthejco-appellantsof th» Otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingtheaforesaidargumentsadvaicedon behalfofthe appellants,,t was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advoiatetl,attlieeffectof • pp. ^0.111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDatta'rayThirthkarvs'. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors, Vs. Union ofIndia & 'Anr, 176(2011)JLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, Resei-vedAuctionRates of the area are relevantto determinethe market value of the acquired laids and infact the sale instancesreliedupon b}^ the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby the Rsspondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthopghas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy o admissibleevidencebut the same cannotbe taken as relevant'evidence for determinationof the market value unless and until d,e same is properly connected witli the land-in question and element of special fancy ofdie purchaserand otherfactors namely, property,proximityto the villageetc. are also.req and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcon'ect marlcet value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejectedby ths the Sale Deed is an lature, situation of the uired to be considered RefeienceCourtandwhileplacingrelianceupon t ra. Union ofIndia. 2002 (62) DR.I 111, Satpal le decisions in Jai Lai S: Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC -423; Lai Chand vs. .Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009) 15 see 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008,titlec Union ofIndia, decidedon 26:09.2011,it v/as urg in price in a shortperiodcannotbe takento be rea as Sushil Kumar vx ed that sharp increase istic until reasons for such shaip increase are explainedby producingin evidence the seller LA.App. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App;No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir and the purchaser as no prudent person having prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay such a higherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha SM>ami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the I, appellants, but for special consideration:Thup, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption Detemiined Rates cannot be countenanced in Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which; has been followed by a coordinateBench ofthis Court in SushilKUmar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on r'' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court, as in appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrpm the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionColl&tc judgment deserves to be modified deleting tt ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto consideration per annum and the same deservesto be brotigh appieciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the j.j sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon loiowledge of the usual of L& DO rates/Pre view of the decision of has been erroneously Sushil KumClf* (supra) recordand the'decisionscited,what emergesis th of the comparableland is the pricepaidby willin LA.App. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAAop. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan Ivv.App. No, .111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur T and so, the impugned e enhancement by the the appreciation@ 12% t in line Vviiile granting at the true market value g purchaser to a v/illing Page 15 of 29. seller aiid the best evidence is the comparablesale instances. While dealingwith tlie questionofpotentialvalue ofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Ai5ex Court in Udho Dm vs. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 inthesewords "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandv. the town or village which had bee because of its commercial, indusi religiousor any otherkindofimpo ofits explosivepopulation; is-a-vis the cit);or n growing in size "rial, educational, stance or because

(ii)- the suitabilityofthe acquiredland bidldings, be they residential, industrial,as the case m.ay be;

(ni) possibiht))ofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beputup on thatland;'

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpediments;or the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v). existence.-of highways, public reads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland; (\n) benefits or advantages of educational Institutions ^ .r . •' forputting up the commercial or health care centres, or the like in areas of the acquired land whic.. availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and the surrounding' h may become

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland Itself being in demandfor building purposes to specify a few. "

¶18, The potentialit}^ofland for the purposeofd buildingpuiposesdependsupon alarge numberc purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in AApp. Ma 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhal l.A.»pp.No, ?3il.ioio&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i-A.App No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ivelopment as also for f factors. For the said mind the purpose for lA.App IA.App l.A.App v^-hich the lands were sought lo be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avimsh (supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevant ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been actors for determination held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsof smallpieces of land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be a groundto when exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwerenot

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer&Am vs. MJC RcsfiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom t on behalfof the appellants is that where there either in location, situation or potentialityof similarlysituated having similar advantage ava discardthem especially available. le decisionsreliedupon is no basic difference ;he villages, which are liable to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing,tlie compensationon the ground of distancebetween and the acquiredland.

¶20It IS a well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of provmg the true market value of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for aparticularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this propositiob,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be refer

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),while tliat tlie acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc.,ijadheldthat deduction n . n .• I similarly situated lands red to with advantage, taking note of the fact of 40% towards development charges was im .observa^tionsmade by the Apex Court in Anrani deserveattention,v/hichare as mider;- 3roper. The pertinent M.olu Dessai (Supra) No, 3195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal No. ;.94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan rjo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars Mnth reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars', which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however tPi&re are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can he taken, as representing the m.arket price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it -.can. only lead to an inference that they are with reference to aissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-vahiation or otherprice depressingreasons. Conse^quentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. " !

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note ofth'e clinchingobserA^ations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira PatU (Supra), which are as follows:-

¶23"It is well settled that genuine arid transactions in respect of the land mider bona fide sale acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between o willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. " Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as I reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Naiurvl Gas CorporationLid.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices\depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfS^r developmentin the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity', increase in prices would be ^/ow,. steady and gradual, Mnthoutanysuddenspurts orjunips. iA.App, No. :].9S/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. Mo. IJ1/2010 Si connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur increases in market value of lands in areas and increases in market value of areas. Therefore if the increase in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% t6 15% per annum the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5^/o tc 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the genial trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of evidence relating to increase in prices. 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 q much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demdnd for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there, was ho chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers,''/the. prices stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a nominalrate of 1%) or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in urban/semi-urban lands in the rural market value in clear and specific Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedM^oulddependupon the same. Normally,recourseis taken to the mode of determiningthe marketvalue by providingappropriate e. proved marketvalue of nearby lands in/ evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisi is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussole transactions or acquisitionsofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the, subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond thai it may be unsafe, even ifit relates to a. neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandard if few years, may become unsafe and^wi where the gap is larger. For example",fo •calation over the Previous years (as ion), where there the gap is only a "•eliable standard. ^ determining the market•value of a land acquired in •1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or •:.A.App,No. 3135/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App. No, 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypilfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiod prices,or suddenspurtsinprices affecting ofincrease." ;; ofstagnation in 'he very standard

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Hmyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSlDC) (Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acqiaired lands by adopting comparative'sales methods.What was saidby the (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesof lands (or la? situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor th say for forming of a _residential layo\ sometimes felt that determination of tl reference to previous status or situation sh and a imiform.rate of compensationshoida alllandsacquiredunderthe same notificati

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale dkei acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale ej^emplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pocharipuj,i.e., the seven Sale Deedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village whichvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.-

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhich is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e.. Sale .Deeds lA.App. No 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IA.App. No. J11/7.010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Apex Court in HSIDC ds with different e same purpose, It, courts have leir value with ould be avoided be awarded for in. " Liplars in and around Pochanpur at a price LA.App l-/VApp. lA.App. (Iix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon th the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the each parcel of land of these sale exemplars question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for tire acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.:W-l/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these ajp-iculturalland iias not been got examinedby the appellants.Had t% purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined-then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas'whohad purchasedmore than' 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. e nature and situation of advantages attached to with acquired land in Deed executed on 25"' No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.^011 and in LA. App No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sal Mamuipurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the s as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters,thouglithe land tise of the acquired lands was changedmuch priorto theiracquisition,but it ha^ come in evidence that the acquiredlandswerebeingusedfor agriculturalpurposetill their uired lands were not >vledge of prevailing of India, decided on exemplar of Village ame camiot be treated acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the 'acq developed lands. No prudent person having laao \0. ;..195/200S&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal No 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan No. .1U/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur marketprice of the land in questionwould 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-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplarof VillagI S relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclc ^1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed c needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11)was situated on the National Highway - 8 and' because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11)vendorhad soldnot onlythe land tiutthe structurethereon includingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,lane, by-lane,etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice ofsimilarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is required whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for th Pre-DeteraiinedRates for the alternateplots by adopted to determine the true market value of question. :j

¶30Parametersgoverningfixationof market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad^ Urban Development Authority)Hyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases Whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialit)fwith referenceto the \pricefetchedby sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tlie neighborhood lA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectGdAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur amallcha (Ex.PW-1/11) sing exorbitant price of f 27*^'^ January,2000, it to be considered as to le developed lands and the DDA ought to be the acquired lands in

¶31or M'hetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buUdingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, rehedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section Vofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands be. then what couldbe done is tofind out the the acquiredland with reference to the uulu ot publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe L4 Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasputand increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard Asmall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed I/Sth ofthe m.arket value ofthe landfound out according^to its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving inc)easedvalue for such buildingpotentiality)arises only•when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there.,w<^sno immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. ' In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land chargedby •omes available, market value of relevant date of the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,dev transferringperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto-re: ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the adjommg undeveloped freehold lands. Following Cha^d(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Coprt in JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessing;the marketvalue of 1-A.App.no. xaa/2010&connected.ppealsofVillaSPrhanpur elopingthe same, and Court in Lai Chand y upon the allotment market value of the the dictum of Lai the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find t has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotm the DDA's Pre-Detennined Rates fof alternate marketvalueof the acquiredagriculturallandsir lat the Reference Court ent of developed land or allotments for fixing the question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessing land in questionwhile taking into consideration the market value of the he earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland.othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-(pbjectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% pdr annum is taken from the yeai 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka PI: Notificationfor developmentof DwarkaPhase-I the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the £ and therefore, the enhancement granted by tl unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good ir the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautipniigthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of t acquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbourmg leliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafewiyeers, may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is largfgr. [n the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of DWarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,itwoulc mode of determining the market value by LA.App. No. 3.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ase-I and the instant , still the price fixed by foresaidescalatedprice le Reference Court is view of the dictum of le market value of the ffld beyond that it may land. What may be a be unsafeto adoptthe Droviding appropriate escalation over the market vahie of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seiiioi respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that th^ Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, M/;hich is unwaiTanted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SushilKjumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), I fmd that 10% increa: potentiality of the acquired land over and a counsel for the le on account of higher Dove the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the Reference Court @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum.In this vieAvof the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respond,em;are dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adc minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe mark(;tvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f l'^: April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deservesto not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum ra pertaining to the Notifi-cationin question has been assailed by the learnedcounsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificatioijof 24"^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villjages in question to be urban.It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto iption of Government's by the Reference Court l-A.App.IMo. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App.Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan l.A.App.No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur be further increased or :es of agricultural land presume that the acquired lands had gainec considered as developed lands. The evidence k aspectof there being any developmentin and a: in question. Not only this, even the sale exer Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appelknts disclosethatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.'

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the potentiality for being d is lacking on the vital "ound the acquired lands Qplars of Radha Swami on record that till the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been mcreasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laidtheirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely u in VillagePochanpurto a rehgiousinstitutionai of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without le establishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe s Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur an VillageSamallcha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparable and so the contiguityof the acquired land wr Village Samallcha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be t ground to grant higher compensationwhile inlyingupon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevzlopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded )• for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the mmmium price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which -generally factors in the rise of potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there i lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur pon the sale of the land id another sale instance ading any evidence to ale exemplars of Radha i the sale exemplar of with the acquired lands Lh the sale instance of •eated to be sufficient price due to higher 5 a gap between what # would be expectedto be the market growth a actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagricu to be reasonable basis for assessingthe mark lands in JaiSingh (Supra)as well as in SusUilKumar(Supra)andIfind no reasonto take a differentviewthan the one whichhad been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).

¶38Ihis Court is of the consideredview thai the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe accuiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillegeBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethat the potentialand the situation ofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectOfhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin close vicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railwayline j:assing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide'roid starting from Nli-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartI acquired lands in two portions, and there bein vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowrnissed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the l-A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal. :; LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan '• ' lAApp. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur nd what the market had tural price has been held ;t value of the acquired and Part 11, dividingthe 1 Farm Houses in the Ct settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC ^ "When once a conclusion is reached th possibilityof the acquired land being us buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture would be sufficientto hold that the acq\ buildingpotentialityandproceed to dett value taldnginto accountthe increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentiality. "

¶39Considering the fact that it would be ver definite value qua potential, and in view of the never be achieved in the matters of assessing: broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,which per with equivalenceby uniformly applying the G Apext Court in 38, in these words at there was the ^dfor putting up such conclusion dred land had a rmine its market Ydifficult to provide a fact that exactness can 'air compensation, it is suades me to treat them overnment's minimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingtiie fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no special featuresto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillageP3chanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellantSiof Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% incre marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determined'by these matters on account of the aforesaid Village Bhaithal and the decision in Sushi! ase over and above the the Reference Court in locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed awarding 10% increase over and above the market ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVilllge the appellantsof VillageBharthaland Village;Bi| to the extent of value assessed by the Bharthal and Village Pochanpur at par with iwasan, the appeals of lA.App. No. n95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur n # the appellants of Village Pochanpur are alsc indicated above. Thus, the market value of the threevillagesin questionis detennined@f 16,f Category 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per ^ lands in question. allowed to the extent acquired lands of these 0,000/- per iiigh-gfor the fea for the Category 'B' Digii-a \-i-^

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the statutorybenefitsas per the Land Acquisition the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2i granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is a djelayin filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid tenns with direction to the compensationamount,if any, depositedby eithet General of this Court, to the concerned Referent be accordingly prepared. January 06, 2012 pkb compensation awarded, ct, 1894 as explained in )01

(93) DLT 569 are Registry to remit the r side with the Registrar ce Court. Decree sheets ^P JUDGE a (<, (vJo . 7 l-A.App, No. 1195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur % + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMa Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Ve: Tewathia, Advocates Ms;Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana, Mr.N. S-Negi and Mr.H.S,Ra Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routra Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Ra respondentin appealsfiled ,' Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advc Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.So Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOFINDIA& ANR. NEW DELHI ... Appellant , Mi-.JaiPrakash, :ma, Mi-.Jitin an Advocate utela, Advocate :y, Advocates. atela, (Advocates for by UOI) •cate for anki and Through: Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR order'

12.01.2012 QMAmLEo. 752/2012(War • Ihis is an applicationfor seekingtypogra Orderof6"' January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave Respondents Adr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.Kaui^udiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI r-^.AjayVema,IVt.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmifaSingh, t^.BanlceyBihariSharma,MV.KunalSharmaand l\ AtA O TT" n .1 It for DDA. phical correction in accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 5- ' i ofthe application.Advancecopyoftliisapplicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicaleiTor pointed out by decision of 6''^ January, 2012 is that in pare the respondent in the graph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'inpai-agraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbecarriedout forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstmdsdisposedof JANUARY12, 2012 •.Pkh LA.App.No.1195/2008 disputed by learned Q, JUDGE Page 2

$-7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 83/2012 BALRAJ SINGH &ORS. Appellants Through: Through; Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate for R-l/UOI Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE STJNIL GAUR