Dal Chand Decd Thr Lrs v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm 'HI If * IN THE HIGH COURT 01^ DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludament Rprprvpd On: TV'Auau.'it ?mi % ludament Dpi fvered On: 19^^ September. 207 7 + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH UOI& ANOTHER Through: Mr.Sanja & Mr.Sa Nawani, Kaonnud Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. Vs. ... Respondents y Poddar, Senior Advocate ijay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AND + LA.APP. 961/2010, No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100 LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA./ 1036/2010 & CM No.12865/ 6/2011 & CM No.6756/20_ No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2013 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM 7/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, APP. 1010/2010, LA.APP Oil, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP. I, LA.APP. 38/2011 ^ CM II, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/S Award No, 06/2002-2003, Villaec. 4 dated

15.09.2000 & ge-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) A^ D LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatte'rs -v . m t LA.APP. 57/2011 & [pp. 130/2011 .M/^ilxKA.APP. 200/201 202/5Mj/LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 244/2011, LA.APP. CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 (Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PR

¶1Whether the Reporters of to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporte /2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, . LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. ^Sec. dated

30.07.1998 & lage-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) ^DEEP NANDRAJOG local papers may be allowed r or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? • • I • I PRADEEP MANDRAIOG. I.

¶1proceed with an apolog/ to the reader by referringto a notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir 3oint of time then to a t of time; but the reason is that the learned counsel for the land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notificationwhich was issued earlier in point of time.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangirPurl was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatiers Page 2 of22 "It m S/ to a notification dated

15.09 2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, for a public purpose, namely. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fa land at ^2,87,9.16.66 per bigh lakhs per acre i.e. fair market at^l3.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference.Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Raj Sinah 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or ^4,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well e Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market value of the acquired a, which is equivalent to ^13.82 i/alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed s the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the Government as on

01.04.20C 0, notified vide Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destinations'were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition compensation, did not grant e

01.04.2000 till the date notif Collector, while assessing ppreciation for the period from ication under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was -issued on 15.09.2000, but the .teamed Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the price ?13.82 lakhs per acre: LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat;ers m •id

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in same reve Jahangir Puri was acquired p under Section of the Lar lue estate of village Bhalswa ursuant to a notification issued id Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior by a declaration under Section 1998. After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No,18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, whereby he alue of the acquired land at equivalent to ?11.20 lakhs per assessed fair market v ?2,33,333 per bigha which is acre.

¶6Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land ssessment made by Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.inA/2008 titled Chandrawati 1/9. Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair marketvalue of the acquired land at ?11,46,670/- per acre. The difference ; in destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the .the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated

25.7.1997 same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. Zoilector adopting the land rate with effect from

1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference a 11% per annum for Court granting enhancement interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment n* well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmat;ers -Jl # Court by way of the appeals above.

¶8On behalf of the l^nd owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on following documentary evidence:-

(a) The rate notified b^ the L&DO vide notification and cross objections mentioned dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by at ?5830/- per square m acre it was urgeo Tibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in 'esidential commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which, is stated to be close to village Bhalaswa jahangir Puri, was fixed eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of ?1,17,96,200/- per acre.

(b) The rate charged commercial plot in Sanja> terms of the Resolution (Exhibit PW-3/1), where developed plots to the square meter Exhi Resolution No,610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ?4,500/- per squ material good evld by MCD for allotment of f Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated

23.11.1987 by MCD decided to allot transporters

(a) T425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be ence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters HT I'iVti". documents, learned cc argued that rate unsel for land owners stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fai land comes to ?17,19,85 that even if 50% deducti development costs, fc on the brochure of DDA it was-argued that as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met " market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made on account of the r undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to ?8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasingthe same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be ?24,76,592/- per acre

(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on the for land owners also auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, " the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square "e in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ?23.72 lakh to T28.4 lakh, which accordingto. learned coiJnseltranslatesto a price of ^14,36,36,36:3 per acre: suitable deduction col counsel urged, that Id be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land,

(d) Relying on a sale, deed of village Khera Khurd under land measuring 2-19 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes (Exhibit PW-15/1), where bigha was sold @ ^3 learned counsel urged th to ^56,93,163/- or ?11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters P ifTT-r 4^' contended that this sale after making a reas deed should be relied upon, onable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another. (Exhibit PW-15/2), whe bigha situated in ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 reby land measuring 4-16 revenue estate of village Mamurpurwas sold to.RadhaSwami Satsang Vyas at a price of^26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned .counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w Jell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a thereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^8 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996.

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay . appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2: in village Bhalswa Jahangir ^1,40,000 and urged that ever is to be given'on said value. Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^oddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of I if 12% appreciation per annum the price as on the date of the notificationunderSection4 comes to ?i,94,782.per bigha, and thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would adjoining village or to adopt price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the he price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedma'tters Page 7 of22 4' s'-' -A fixing tlie marl<et value of Inaving a vast area. Learne learned Land Acquisition C mari<et value of tine land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the Dllector has assessed. fair price much higher than the one so has learned Reference Court.

10.. It may. be noted that whan judgment was reserved in the above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA submitted that in response counsel for the land owners 1/5 Un/on of India in which he h 19'^'^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition App.No.266/2008 titled lai Sinah 1/5. UP! &Ann in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon, in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to arguments of learned the. arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the depositionofShri TrilokChand Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC. No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoh as explained the topology of the area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa JahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated,in fhe North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadii and Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharoia Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of. village Jahangir Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected m.atters

¶12I may additionally note tliat tlie lay out plan of the National Capital .Territory of Delhi, published by Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NationalHighwayNo.l. UllagesBadii, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoor side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development 3ur. (Narela) are on the western took place in the revenue es acquisition of agricultural laniis in the revenue estate of said village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due :ate of village Jahangir Puri, post of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to. urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinoh l/s. Union nf India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 45i, resettlement colony called Jai^ it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the ,area which had sprung up during the period cf emergencyi.e. the year 1975-

¶76It has to be rememberedthat the two subjectacquisitions were also for re-settiementof.:3lumandJ.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008iai Sinati 1/?. uni ^

12.8.2011 had yet to be Ann, which was reserved on pronouncedon 19.8.2011,when instant appeals were reserved for judgment,has since been pronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 I, would highlight that v\ hile assessing the fair market value of the land situated in ;.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-Wes villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar t Delhi being revenue estate of r Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters if) w constituted a 'V at the point .Road i.e. NH-1 Rohtai< commoii point,, proceeding 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be highlightedthatvillageBhalswaJahangir Purl is outsidethe 'V aforeseiidand as explainedhereihabove NH-l.

¶15In the,appeals relatingto the said 10 villageswhere land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notificationsissued in the year In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) and the sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sut-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these IS recorded in paragraphs 21 to unden-two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced here

¶21The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which ?63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected evidence to determine fair market value agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale ... deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005^had'stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religiouspurposeand was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise is predicated on:the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 whjch is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to f26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter ^ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable of the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was js trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters been held not to be rei fair marl<et value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on Organization "Christian reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization" as per the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organization had to pay the price for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requ site size suitable for requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was .a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in the decjisionsreported as 1995 (1) see.717 Land Acquisition Officer Elurij & Ors. Vs. /sti Rohini&Ann (Refetipara 6) and 2009 (14) SCC jvioiid. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acouisitinn Offlrpr (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidenceby virtue of Section 51A of the L.!A.Act 1894 have^ not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market v reason there may which have led the buye, true test is the price wh alue of land in an area for be special circumstances • to pay a higher price. The ich a well informed willing . —• --W,. 11 11wi I I vvniniy buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influe need by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular pidce of land. An informed bi studied the market and -yer would be one who has . --- has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a fDarticularpiece of land he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair markjetvalue of the lands in the area. 1would be failing if I do not highlightthat the on'? deed dated 20 5.2002, which was accepted by the learned o? fonn? pertainingto the notificationdated 27 1.2003 where-underagriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan,was sold by an agriculturistto an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. ?17,74,109/- price which comes to ^63 478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28 89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters 1) (•111 Ex.PW-l/2 and ,Ex.PW-l/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para above would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land when the acquisition is of A/ouId make all the more a ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer, I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya 3eing the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratap Sinah (since, deceased) thru LRs 1/^9. I/O/ & Qrs. It was reasons to hold that advisably not be gooo have been acquired anc such large an area, it v reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the highlighted that the sale had purchased 8 bigha deed therein by which L&T and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected, therein could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by t question, with suitable d Te Court and the price in eduction on account of the Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. parcel of land being lai'ge, was accepted by the le instant cases the 2 sale Ex,PW-l/2 Ex.PW-l/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair argument ignores the reasoning ^1? u Division Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative 38' wherein the Division value in the sale deed on of the market value, but found that if the price therein was reduced by would be the same as wo reference .to the averag produced by the Union o 1/3^^, the price arrived at -lid be price arrived at with e rate of the sale deeds f India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ill:!' ment were giving a price of sale deed under 2d the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to f2,31,_800/- which was near about the price of f would be deducted ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of id notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995

16.11.1995 Court determinedfair marketjalueas of the said datesat same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. produced by the Govern 3,7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ^2,15,1.60/- per bigha, fronn the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 1993 a Section 4, of the Land ^2,15,160/-. In other w meaningfully. It is not ords, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but that the Court treated sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, years had required to be It once again, that I have noted inherent e of the land price as per s itself is intrinsic mutually the 2 sale deeds reflecting appreciation for given. I would highligl hereinbefore already contradiction in the vali the 2 sale deeds and th destructive evidence of fair market value."

¶16For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl.

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village BhalswaJahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ns lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ?15,70,000/-. !

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^5,70,000/-per acre as on 01.07.2003, •it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters i 4iT difficult to compreiiend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ?18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was fl8 lakhs per acre and 7 to ?15.7 lakhs per acre' I ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph of its decision, learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ned that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer and an informed willing seller and , without being influenced by particular land, and had thus special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. i issue in my decision dated 008 iai Sinah l/s. UP! & Anr. i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land Is with evidence, of neither the buyer nor the seller being well-

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 informed and there being a s have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with pecial feature qua the land and good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reite

¶20As regards. auction rat situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen irate the same. tes of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, 1 do not find Its of the learned counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned ReferenceCourt containedin paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premisedon the decisionof the SupremeCourt reportedas Lai LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters i?n: (1 Chand 1^5. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e ^idence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.

¶21In my decision dated lai Sinah Vs. UO! & Ors.. I he

13.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 d extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case with referenceto price at which ceveloped plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 (Df the decision in iaiSinoh's case are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted larjd sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed esidential Scheme developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same 3er which were noted by the by DSIDC and Narela R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num. Supreme Court in La! Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as the value of land in the s

¶30It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area and Narela Residential S acquired a building pc would be what would building potentiality woul most unreliable to determine Jbject cases. as held even by the learned with development of Rohini Residential Scheme cheme, the subject lands had tentiality, but question be the value to which d translate, itself.

¶31I hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping in view the observation and the findmgs of the SupremeCourt in Lai Ciiandscase (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence ^s reliable. On the issue of potentialityrelating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters

¶22Highlighting that in La/ Chancfs case (supra) I ' , Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless was too . inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be ! crystallized. I • , •

¶23. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Saijay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural, land.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lease-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to deve:loped plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed discarded with reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, 1n where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with referenceto L&DO rates noting that Iam concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring' 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topologyof th(i area and as per the testimony ) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar l\lo.ll2A/2008 it emerges tha village .Bhalswa Jahangir Purl would reveal that the two vil icoiony adjoining the famous village Burari is on the east of and indeed the plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl ^and Burari are separatedby tjhe outer ring road as we travel towards Hubarka Chowk from the Tibetan' Re-settlement Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The itwo are adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters fC-thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessing the fair in village Burari, which was a dated

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, 1 market value of the land situated cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of lad considered material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of. LA./appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.97,1/2008 titled Rsiba/ & Ors. Vs. Union of India ^ Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60 land, ^10,44,522.73 per ac d assessed the fair market value ,580.82 per acre for Category A re for Category B land ^9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification dated

24.7.1998. notification dated

18.07.2002 The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at n9,20,568/- per acre for CategoryAland and fl7,28,512/-per acre for Category B land. Ir assessed the fair market value Jai Singh's case {supra), I had of land in 10 villages as under:- S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8. 2000 n4.75 for Category 'A' n4.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 ^4.75

¶3Bawana,

7.8. 2000 i n4.75 for Category 'A' ?14.38125 for Cateqorv 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.c ).2000 ^14.835 for .Category 'A' ^14.46413 for Category 'B' EA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters .5. Narela

2.5 .2001 n6.165 , for Category 'A' n5-.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Hoiambi Kalan

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

7.. Alipur

¶228.2001 ^6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Hoiambi Khurd

22. 8.2001 X

16.745 for Category 'A' tie.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9. Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B' ao. Sanoth

7.12.2001 n7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ^8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

¶235.2002 fl8.655

¶13Hoiambi Kalan

¶235.2002 ^8.655

¶14Alipur.

¶235.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶271.2003 ?19.435 for Category 'A' ^8.94:912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Ka ah

27.; L.2003 • ^19.435 for Category 'A' ns.94912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category 'C 27/ In lai Sinoh's case (su minimum land rates enliancec to time, and found tl^e same pra) I had also analyzed the by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.999/2010& cojmectedmatters •^IDs Si) r >3 Governmentofficers and had found not only'rationalebut a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah 1/^7 i/nf a; Mn, 20D4 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. um. m

(2004) 95 Hukum Singh i/^. lioi and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005Wa/7e/7o^er5//7a/7 1/y. UQ! & Qm. decided on 11.5.2006wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years as of

1.4.2001. , It. sh between the year 199C sharply and good corrofc be the decision of the Gairai's case (supra), wh above.

¶51r need to elaborate decision in Gairais ca pertaining to fair marke village Holambi Kalan as various dates between the years ;• the minimum price fixed by the GovernmentI had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:-

¶50The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the ^/arious notifications issued from time to time by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agriculturallands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As bf 27.4.1990minimum price was T4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to nO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997i.e. the increaseis ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054%increase in 7 years and • the averageprice increasewould be 16.436%. The price r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e. Dws that due to urbanization, and 1997 prices grows fairly orative evidence, for this would Division Bench qf this Court in ich I have discus:sed in para 49 a little more with respect to the e. Discussing evidence t value of agricultural land in of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters i;;i! • agricultural yield and foi per annum was ?^95,00C Court discussed lihe valuation on basis of nd that the gross return per acre /- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus, capitalized the land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the, matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to no,03,364/- per acre (Refer para-31). The Court theh considered,theprices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. •The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as age that the potentiality had been Government issued •n w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions inst the minimum price notified ^ as of 1.4.1997 at ?10 lakhs per acre, sale^instanceswere highlighting that the price was fl0,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in MchenderSinah's case, pertaining to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court w ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential, commercial industrial future exploitation of agriculturalland in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lapds theoretically acquiring a potentiality,the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with concerned, virtually no c which Division Bench was evelopment had taken place in Village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential, para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The c As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the market ecisions in Gairai's case LA.App.No;999/20r0 & connectedmatters ^T; (tn Mahender Sinah's • ca translated itself into a when prices rose by ^ thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momdntumand the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial industrial and probably there was enough availabilityof developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated. 1^' se highlight that potentiality reality between 1990'and 1997 about

16.5% per annum

¶53The empirical evic respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely ence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in rned Reference Court has given , , upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanoiful sale deeds, to determine fair marketvalue, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by ,the learned Land jAcquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some referetices in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be fl9,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for ^5,39,690/- and ^70,160/-was paid'as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2 (^5,39,690/- + ?70,160/-) were 'ice ^17,74,109/- per acre as of

0.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than th e minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that. the Learned ReferenceCourt has rightly adopted the correct principleand has relied upon the correctevidenceand has given the correct appreciationsby suitably increasingthe price to make up the i interregnumperiod between he dates when minimum prices were notified and. the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters •h Section 4 of tlie Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cross objections,whetherfiled by the land owners or the Union of India.

¶29I leave the parties to bear their own cost. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmatt'eirs (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-43 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 164/2011 DAL CHAND DECD THR LRS Appellant Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG