Sunil Sardana v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

30.03.2012 CM No.5425/2012 (u/S 151 CPC) Delay of 688 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.Paramhans Advocate for Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocatesfor respondentsNo. 1 & 2 respectively, state that only opposition to this application is that for the period of delay, the appellantought not be granted the intereston the compensationamountin the eventof his succeedingin 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 688 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned while making it clear that for the delayedperiod, the appellantshall not be granted interest in the event of succeeding in the appeal. With aforesaid observations,this.applicationstands disposed of. LA.App.No. 84/2012 Page1 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. d m 0^ LA.APP. 84/2012 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 ReferenceCourt vide impugnedorder of 15^ February,2010 while upholding the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to the appellant, has denied any enhancement thereupon. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent-UOI, states that the subject matter ofthis.appeal stands covered by the decision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008 'Ranbir Sharma Vs. Union ofIndia&Am.' renderedon 6^*^ January,2012, wherein compensation amount in respect of lands acquired in Village Pochanpur 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. «L GAUR) JUDGE MARCH 30, 2012 plcb LA.App.No. 84/2012 Page 2 % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ' Reserved on: November 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BI-IARTHAL) RANBIR SHARA4A i .. Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maaii, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.An:ta Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. •Mr.Raghiivinder Godara, .Advocate Mr.l<I.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rai|tela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiitiay, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, iVlr.Deepal and Mr.DhananjayMeliiawat Mr.H.S.P.autela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocsites for respondentin appealsfiled b^j UOI) . " I Appellant Khosla., Mr.Samit Khosla Advocates versus LMION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAd/ocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao .Vadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advoc;ites for LAC/TJOI Mr.AjayVerma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr. S.K.Sethi, Mr.P av^ Sharma, Advocate for DDA LA.APP.412/2.008 &' CM.No.4096/2008 La.APP.453/2008; LA.APP.688/2008 & LA.APP.697/2008& 'CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Obje CM.No.51.0/2009 (Cross-Objectionsj; LA.APP.7e 'an Mathur, Mr.Kuiial (Cn>ss-01j)iections);LA.APP.452/2008; CM.No.5590/2010 (Cross-Objeclions); ctions); LA.APP.70i/2008& B/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; lA.A|5p.No. liys/2008a connectedAppealsofVillageBharttial I^.App. No. ?.9.:/2.010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IA.App. .No. l:l.l/?,010&connecladAppealsof Village!Pochanpur Page 1 ol 2!) LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Obj CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.AiPP.77f LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008& CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No^15/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No931/2009 LA.APP805/2008; LA.APP.8b6/|008;LA.APP.813/2008& C^M.NoJ795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/i008 & CM.No.806/2009 I^A-APP.818/2008; LA.APP':81?/2008; LA.APP.820/2008-LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP833/2008" LA.APR844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APP.873/i008 & CM.No779/2011 Cross-Objections);-LA.APP.892/2008& CM.N6,799/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV CmZ^oZIT LA.APP.9j5/2008;L^S^R^SSrl • TA^ (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008- ]AAPP ^ CM.No.519./2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008' LA.APR976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APR.986/2008 & CM.No572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/20i8&CM.No.17340/2008' vCioss-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.;!7335/2008(Cross-Objections)- LA.APP.1032/2008& CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Oojections)-LA APP 1046/2008 . LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008&CM,No.7L51/2009 (Crts Obie^^^^^^^^^ 'AAPp'!o51/2008& (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008! 1AAPP'10539008i (Cross-Obje|ctions);LA.APP.1052/2008; CM No ]7fiS9nnQ rn 6/^009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008& CMNo752'2m? LA.APP.i055/3008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & LM.No 752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008cfe CM.No 1557/2011 ^ LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.17259/2008(Cross-ObiectiosV' La.APP.1O6O/20O8;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM Nd 546/2009 fCross Obiertvi.-'^V LA.APP.1073/2008;LA.APP.,074/2008&CM.No623S SSSS "v LA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.4k2/2009('Cross-Ohiprf--v' Ife^CK^No^lS LA.APP.1086S8 CM'^^o^38^'>9/2oS^c (Cross-Obifections);LA.APP.1108/2008 CM N< 382^200?;^^'°^^-ObjecUons);LA.APP.1109/2008;LA.APP.1110/2008& CM No 3831-009 LA.APP.Hll/2i08;LA.APP.1112/2008& CM.KoJ831/^009(Goss-Objectio.ns);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2nOQ s^ioss-Objections);LA.APP.l115/2008; LA.APP.l116/2008-L'\ APP 119 l/9nn5'' LA.APP.1126/2008;LA.APP.U29/2008&. CM.NoisSoV I'tAPP n"?/700s' ^ CM.Nov566/2009(Cross..ObjectiolV l-A.APl.11j3/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008•& CM.No 7449/onoq rPmco nkL.r ^ LA APP u'56/2008-LA^APpTi'™o'os°f fw ni r CM.MO 7774n009 ;A...r.r. NO. 11^7.008&connectedAppoakof ' -I lAApp,No. ;.y4/2(,no&connectedAppealsofvniageBijwasan | ../v.App,Mc.1u/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I : I Page2or?.9, . CM.No.3835/2009(CrosT-Objeciion^^^ CN4.Nn.n11/9nOQ t a a r»p» ^ . . i/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; % (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP;!19i/:^U08-IAAPP 11 oo/onnc T194/2008; LA.APP'jll95/2008-LA APP 1197/200S LA.APP.1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-oi^ec!tionsVLA APP loo/^OOH LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP:i2lSo8-LA A^P !2??/900 CMNoSWWZ LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.I241/2008& U\I.Mo.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP 1243/2008• TA APP lo'^onnno LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.lSS'LA APP 279 2008 LAAPPsSp"^' LA-APP.,1283/2008.'LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP:79/2009; LA.ApSoTT'CMTst/tu LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APPJ2,/fo09! lSS LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP.162/'2009; LA.APP.187/2009' LA.APP.197/2009; LA.APP.198/2009,' LA.APP.13^2009; LA.APP.14^2009; LA.APP.190/2009; LA.APP.199/2009; .".rossKfsi-'rssl, .rsT": (Cross^-Objections); LA:APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245I20O9; ' •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.APP480;e009-LA,APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP491/2009-LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009: LA.APp'^O^f LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LAAPP509/ LA..APP.511/2009; LA,APP.512/2009 LAAPP5I3 LA.A.PP.572/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APp'45/ LA.APP.295 LA.APP.447/ 2009; 2009; 2009; 2009; Z009; ^010; LA.APP.404/2010; LA:APP.13/2011;'LA.^Pl11/^8^ LA.APP.1177/2008;LA.APP:1201/2008;LA.APP.23f/2009' (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30V96/L&B/LA/ ^ Land Acquisition.Ac 26,..002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,De LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.45 8/2009 LA.APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.5 10/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA..APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 13417 dated 13.12.2000 't, 1894 & Award No. ill) (GRID-B) Re^rved on:Decp.mhpv08, 2011 Pronounc on: January 06. 7.017 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEVENDERKUMAR Through; lAApp NO. :i.i..V20C,8&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal '..App. No. ?.9.(/2010&ccnnectGdAppealsofVillageBijwasan L-/\pp.(sio.J.-.I/Mio&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr."* ••• Appellant -^irendraSingh versus IIOI & ANR Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routra}, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddj Mr.Sanjay KimiE 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. Mr.S.K.Solanld i Mr.B.K. Routra> filed by UOL. Mr.VirendraSin^h,Advocatein R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.BankeyBihajSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. 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.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APt^ Respondents ir. Senior Advocate with .r Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.lj^IavlinSwain,Advocates forUOI/LAC ind Mr.S.K.Rout and , Advocates in appeals 9/2010 4/2010 9/2010 23/2010 277/2010 384/2010 89/2010 13/2010 48/2010 52/2010 57/2010 7:60/2010 362/2010 407/2010 5j88/2010 725/2010 7131/2010 54/2010 54/2010 9^/2010 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 75/20.10 & C;M.No.964/2011 (Cross-objeptions) 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. & a^elating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/i3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,"VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND IA.App, No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal i.A.App. No. 29/1/201C& connectedAppealsofVillageDijwasan I'VApp.ivJo.:i-3;./2010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanour ' Page4of29 % (GRID-C) Reser 'ed on: December

¶182011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2017 LA.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANP0R) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Tlirough: Appellants Mr.B.D.Shar^a,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to iL 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin ' ' ' " ^4,65/2011) Advocate for appellant LA.App.No. 61, t Mr.Rajesh Yadav in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. L.A.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. '. 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

6.5/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/201 r 536/2011 Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma and Mr.Sc forDDA. 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. LAAPP. 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 554/20'! 1 LA.APf. LA.APP. LA.AP?. 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. l-A.APP. Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mi-.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Mg.NplinSwain,Advocates forUOI/LAC Sharma, Mr.Kunal mer K.Seth, Advocates 55/2010 D9/2010 '19/2010 51/2010 )5/20l0. )2/2010 3^)7/2010 .433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/'2010 7^4/2010 6lj/2011 ll|7/2011 129/2011 521/201L 526/2011 591/2011 . 156/2010 .215/2010 .250/2010 .270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/20! 0 758/2010

918./2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535,9.011 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. IAAPP. NO.139V2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' L/VApp.AO, 2.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan • .App, No. Ul/2010&connectedAppealscfVillagePochanpur Page 5 of 2.D (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Award No. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,Villa CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR . ORDER % 06"01.2012

¶1Since-the grounds on which enhancement sought by the appellants in these bunch of thereforewith the consentof learned counsel fcr the partiespresentat the hearmg of these appeals, these hunch|of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.R10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417Uated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages BhEithal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder. i

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance c-f Notification of 13'" December,,2000 under Section4 of the Land iVcquisi'ionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land i comprisingof thirteenP.evenueEstates includin i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. -3. Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide • i.e., Award No.26/20'02-2003; Award No.28/2 No.30/2002.2003granting compensation@?13|.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) aod ?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B' (withouttop soil). j j

¶4Dissatisfiedwiththe assessmentofmarket[alueoftheiracquired l-A.App.No. 119S/2G08S. connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp. No. 294/7,010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A,App,No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur . I . Page.6of29 & B/LA/13417 dated Requisition Act, 1894 & •ge Pochanpur, Delhi) of the compensation is appeals are identical, 1 one compact block villages in question. in the aforesaid three ;hree separateAwards, :002-2003;and Award agriculturallands, appellantshad sought refbre the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Referen Judgmenthad enliancedcompensation@ ?i5. appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpurhave been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellantsof Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs ice under Section 18 of ce Court vide impugned 00 lacs per acre for the ^13.36 lacs per acre for compensation sought by Der acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions i:i Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board V5. Land Acquisiti Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu 'Dessal

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. Sta on Officer, Gadag and . State of Goa and Anr,, 'e ofHaryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010j)3 See 661; RanvirSingh and Anr, vs'. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 346'''; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of Ind, Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs i>S. 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Pui jab Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik v.v. Stdte of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003titled as 'ia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Jnion ofIndia & Anr., of Haryana & Ors., Smt. Indu Khorana V5. Gram Sabha & Ors, Special Land'Acquisition Officer <& Anr vs" M decided on 26.03.2010; K. Rafi.q Saheh, (2011) / SC-C 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors ^s. ExecutiveEngineer, lA.Apn No. :L19.'i/2008a connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthai lA.App. No. 29'i/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan L'\.App.No. in/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001' SC Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175: Risal Singh & Ors, Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (D3); Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769;; Ger.eral Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011' SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India <& Anr, •176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007litled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority) & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. Unionopndia,(2004) 10 SCC 621\ Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 1 No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs.' Unio

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as . India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371..

¶6On the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mi'.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing cciunsel for the appellants thatthe locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its p( adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin t time andthe same cannotbe limitedto the ne^irfiiturealone.

¶7It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,coi^nsel for appellantsthat \ I Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan 1 SCC 423; LA. APP. n of India, decided on ^ed Ram vs. Union of »tential which must be le area over a period of passes through the land of Village Bharthal, di'^ i.e., ori the easternside of the railwayline is the u\,/'.pp.No, 1,195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharltial iA,App, No, :?M/20i0& connectGciAppealsofVillageBljwasan lA.App, No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur /iding it into two parts, IGI Airport, Nev/ Delhi Page a of 29 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Pe roleura and a road meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the .agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGLAirport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFami Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Sama out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the kha. It was also pointed appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first a(;quiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereaflerMn Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmqn the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phasc-II,-Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/m^ipto highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous. P

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan appellants that the Reference Court has fa potentialityof the acquired land in the light . in the year 1980 for the year 1982 for Bharat Village Pochanpur were of Dwarka Phase-I and learned counsel for the led to appreciate the 3f its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be^; agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide whkh villages in question was changed from, agri I commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireIknd ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24"' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence b}j Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtv/o f^Jotificationshave been • wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by lA.Apo, No, 1195/2008&connRcted'AppealsofVillageBharthal lA,App.No. 'mHOlQ&connactedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.'\.App.No. yiinmo&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur land use of the three cultural to residential/ •elying upon P. Rama Redcli& Ors. V5. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land miist be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,if the authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it would not meanthat 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)?5: merely because of the said variation, these sale thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued .i because of any special advantagesand as per'settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluD^. and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageof sale taken as representingthe marketprice of the fend which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances,-therefore,:reliance placed by the 2 lacs to ?62 lacs and exemplars cannot be '•ssai State of Goa exemplars ought to be ReferenceCourt upon the minimumrates/circlerat marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerrone 2S for deteiiTiiningthe ous.

¶11Assessmentofmarket value ofthe acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also cm the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Government for Allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the bcation,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is l-A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 7.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l-A.App. No. 11-1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyonthe basis o; developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on DetemiinedRates (PDIis)as referredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-Impul of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the im following grounds Village Pochanpur and the L& DO rates of the the basis of the Pre-i5e India Private Limited pugned judgment on the a) "ignores the acJaaowledgementon respondent about the Award No.26/

23.10.2002 being flawed in the proceedings Civil Writ petition No. the part of the W02-2003 dated course of the 19012 of 2006 of appellant dated (Referred to in cross-examination

7.7.2007) h) Does not accountfor the fact that .. dated 18.9.1987adverselyajfectedthe the areafor more than 15 years before under Section5 ofthe LandAcquisitic issued. c) J-aluing the land on the basis' of the Public Notice rates of land in the Notification n Act, 1894 was

11.9.2001issuedby the Governmentof Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance down by variousdecisionsincludingin recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar.2010(3)SCC661. 'he letter dated National Capital 'Vith the law laid one of the more d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactoro wru^n per establishedlaw has to be consideredjDeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. k e). Does not deal with disparityin valuQ ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCo\rtin the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No/5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot disregardedin ; I s which as per .\.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.Adp. No, /94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan .-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur case the average sale price is lower. Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, '20,10 Supreme Court has also held tlaat Further in Anjana IS) see 710, the '/ze highest of the exemplars and not by. averaging,of different t)^pes of sales transactions should be adjudicatingupon compensation,upon considered while a certan land.

3.2008 in LAC ,f) Relied upon judgrnent dated. No.97A/20,06to decide the market value ofthe subject landwhile igiwringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis much higlierthan 15 lacper acre in BlockA and ^13,36,000in BlockB in violation e Supreme Court Haryana 2010(1) of the law laid down by the Hon'bl including in Subh Ram vs. State of see 444. As a consequence, the irr.pugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No.l framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturall^nd although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorpordtionofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras: ai changed and these areas ceased to be id Bharthal was agricultural and came now under the urban bouridaricsof Delhi State. The masterplan and Notificationsoj land use change show that in futh subjected to residential, commerc permissibleuses. It is alsopertinentto appellantleadevidencein respectofth of the ConstitutionofIndia, w.e.f. 1. Governmentfoi re land can be 'ial and other mention that the 2 7/'' amendment

6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the lane deemeda municipalarea and the mun was electedfrom there. No Panchayc held in the area. is situated, was I'cipal Counsellor •t elections were h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr kv! Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developm.entin the area has a directeffect on the prite that a yvilling purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectRclAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/20:0&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

¶13In Che briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and oftJrs of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factualdetailshave been providedwithaprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with thejoo-appella.rtsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals. i •14. Supplementingthe aforesaidarguments.dvajcedon behalfofthe appellants,.t was tu-gedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advoiatethattlte,effectof o. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page13 pf 29 L/\.A(jp. lA.App. i.AApp. auctionedsimilarlysituatedlandas oommercialblocks at the rate ofabout K2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidLandis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2 jor similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthe po&sib the use ofthe landalthoughthe land development purposes of Dwarka reiteratedthat the land use ofVillage Bharthalwas changed and these are agriculturaland came now under thm u ofDelhi State. 'iity of change of was acquired for Phase II. It is Dhool Siras and CIS ceased to be rban boundaries I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000 although they clearly establish and 24.10.1994 he commercial : , edLuoiisn tne commercial Tahsildar [Lj/iJj [ZUlU) J SC.i. ] if .n ^7 /-r ^ \ ^^ngunm

(La), (2010)3see 661 it yi^as heldthat which land is acquired is a relevan determiningvalue-ofthe property ac whether thf ^

¶7• thepurposefor t factor. While quired the fact ^""'^'"SPotenHfyto'be jor ouuain2 nurDnstpa im _ s^'- '-"^'•i-uLngpoient Jor buildingpurposes in immediate or needs to be considered. in near future m) The presence ofa number of buildings on the lands bum ''""S by the buUdinvs are to hp f^ant^^ 7, ^ buildings are to be treated as house j were acquiredfor purpose ofputting auartpvc A p n fA-t-i - j1 -t-ites. The lands up residential quartersAsaportionofthe landis. beingLmiLrZas no-use site tho s ^""^'aerea as le potential of near future. " house site, the adjoining lands hav&- tl beingputin betteruse as housesitesin th LA mbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh DattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238;KapUMehra(MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia ^ Am, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, Resei-vedAuction Rates of determinetlie market value of the acquired la instancesrelieduponby the appellantsai-e compe ;he area are relevant to ids and infact the sale xable and ought to have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the con-ect market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancei leflectmgjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby the R Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthough Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy o admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence lor determinationof the market value unless and.until the same is properly connectedwith the land-in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand otherfactorsname|y, lalure,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcon-ect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtandwhileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) ,DR1 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC-423;Lai Chand vs.\UnionofIndia andAn.

(2009) 15 see 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008:titlec UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it v/as urg in price in a shortperiodcannotbe taken to be rea such shaip increase are explainedby producingi .App. (Mo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan W.App. iMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir nent of compensation sspondents,Mr. San^y as per Section 51-A of the Sale Deed is an as Sushi! Kumar vs. :d that sharp increase istic until reasons for a evidence the seller

i) and the purchaser as no prudent person having prevalent trend in the market would pay such a 1 the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, B appellants, but for special consideration. Thu 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 coordinateBenchofthis Court in SushilKumar(supra)amiRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanja}'^Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturaland by the Governmentas on 1'' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired laijids determined by the Reference Court, as in appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrpm the priceofacquired lands as fixed, b}' the Land AcquisitionCollectcr and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting tile enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% I per annum and the same deservesto be broughtin line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and the|-eby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissions Icnowledge of the usual ligher pay as reflected in eas, relied upon by the 3, it was contended on of L& DO rates/Pre view of the decision of has been erroneously Sushil Kum.ar (supra) advanced by both the sides and upon,closepemsalofthe impugnedqucigment,the evidenceon recordand the'decisionscited,what emergesi'^ th ofthe comparableland is the pricepaidby willin L/\.App.No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageSharthal W.Aop. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IV\.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur at the true market value •g purchaser to a v/illing Page 15 of 29. m seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of'the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the mark(it value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 inthesewords:- ^ 's. State of Hmyana & '(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or villagewhich had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational. religiousorany otherkindofimpo ofits explosivepopidation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredIdnd buildings, be they residential, industrial,as the case may be;

(iii) possibility^ofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using rtance or because

(v)

(vi) for putting up the commercial or the acquti-edlandfor buildingpurpose; existence, of highways, public' rc^.^., uj buildingplots or developedresidenvialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland; ads, layouts of benefits or advantages of educatic health care centres, or the like'^in areas of the acquired land whic,. availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and • ;

(vii) landsaroundthe acquiredlanddr the acquiredland Itself being in demandfor building purposes to specify a few. "

¶181he potentialityoflandfor the purposeofdsvelopmentas also for mal institutions, the surrounding' h may become buildingpurposesdependsupon alarge numberc purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in jAApp. No. 1.1.95/2008ii connecledAppealsofVillageBharlhal tA.mpp. no. M4/;.010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.,>pp No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur f factors. For the said mind the purpose for 'm which the lands were sought to be acquired events to some extent. It has been so obseTved by the Apex Court in but also the subsequent Avinash(supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevant ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsn upon by the appellantscouldnot be a groundto when exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwerenot

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the factors for detemiination held by the Apex Court .all pieces of land relied discardthem especially available. Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficerd Am vs. M.K RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC

¶714Tlielegalpropositionwhichemergesfrointhe decisionsreliedupon on behalfof the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference I I either in location, situation or potentialityof similarlysituatedhaving similar advantagepailableto them even as regards tore prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing the ;he villages, which are compensationon the groundof distancebetween and the acquiredland.

¶20It is a. well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of piovmgthe true marketvalue of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for aparticularpmpose. But, it is similarly situated lands equally true that the burden of proving inadeq awarded is on the claimant. For this propositio Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be refer

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),while that the acquired land was situated in close Vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc':,l,adheldthat deduction of 40«/o towards development charges was imj^roper. The pertinent Liacy of compensation ii, the decision of the -ed to with advantage. ' taking note of the fact .observationsmade by the Apex Court in Anjani deserveattention,whichare as under:- ' Molu Dessai (Supra) lA.App lA.App, lA.App. No, U95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal No. ;.94/20.l0&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan No. 131/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur "The legal position is that even where exemplars M'ith reference to similar I highest of the exemplars, which is a bon will be considered. Where however there ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a r the average thereof can be taken, as market price. But where the values' disci Pt'vo sales are markedly different, it car inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-vahiation or other price depressing reasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching obsen^ations pertainingto determinationof fair marketraite of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira •Patil (Supra), which are as follows "It is well settled that genuine and transactions in respect of the land under there are several mds, usually the 1fide transaction, are several sales arrow bandwidth, representing the osed in respect of only lead to an bona fide sale acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactionsproximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willingvendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonableprudentpersons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. " Principlesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNature.!.Gas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices\depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin

¶23surrounding area, availability of land fo the area, and the demandfor land in t, r development in he area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinit).'] increase in prices would be gradual,Mnthoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. doM>, steady and lA.App. No. J19S/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. Mo. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur m 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 some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand 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 no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in areas and increases in market value of areas. Therefore if the increase in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural dreas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% tc 7.5%per annurri. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of evidence relating to increase in prices. special reasons for applying a higher ra any specific evidence relating to the prices, then the increase to be applied w the same. urban/semi-urban lands in the rural market value in clear and specific Where there are te of increase, or ctual increase in ould depend upon Normally, recourse is taken to the mode (f determining the marketvalue by providingappropriate e, proved marketvalue of nearby lands in/ evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisi is no evidence ofany contemporaneoussc acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the ne _ said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond that it. may be unsafe, even if it relates to a. neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardif few years, may become unsafe and un where the gap is larger. For example,Jo market•value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or i.A.App. Mo. 3195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBhartlial LA.App..No.294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBljvvasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur •calation over the-previous years (as tion), where there le transactions or ighbourhood. The the gap is only a •reliable standard, determining the m I i acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may hav,e mafiypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drasticchange apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaiyingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease."

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.Whatwas saidby.the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra)is as under:- • ; "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor tike samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatusor situations]\ouldbe avoided' anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldhe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe samenotification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale e}<emplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpui', i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RaMaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village whichvariedfrom ^"52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-lHto Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-oMaiersand R Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland meas Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe c( the landmthe villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds W.App. No 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App.No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pochanpur at a price adha SwamiSatsang, iring 18 Bighas and 6 )rrect market value of (bx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat'itspiice varies from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre..Meaning thereby, the exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW entire land of the sale •1/10) did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentuponthe natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establishthe each parcel of land of these sale exemplars advantages attached to with' acquired land in question,is lacldng.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe.treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired special need of the purchaser of these agricu Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agricult-uralland has not been got exainmedby the appellants.Had tlie purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined^,tl; elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreed to^ pa these lands. The special fancy of the purchas Satsang, Beas v/ho had purchasedmore thaii 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide SkleDeed executedon 25'" Maich,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. Jm Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 23.8.;!011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Vhiin ''pf India, decided on lands in question. The Itural lands in Village -^W-1/10) has not been en it could have been y such a high price for 'T, i.e., Radha Swami No. 266/2008 titled as

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sal^ Mainurpurwas discardedwhileholdingthat the same caitnotbe freatld as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 3 exemplar of Village

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it of the acquired lands has come in evidence that the acquiredtodswere beingusedfor agriculturalputposetilltheir acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acc developed lands. No prudent person having kno |.A.App No. ...195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal /.pp. No. 2J4/20a0&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •.A.App.No.lu./20in& connectedAppealsofVillagePorhanp,r uired lands were not wledge of prevailing market price of the land in question would'pdy such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for speciailconsideration 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 exemplar of Village 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 exem situated on the National Highway - 8 and: because vide Sale Deed (Bx.PW-l/l1) vendorhadsoldnot onlythe lafidbutthe structurethereon amallcha (Ex.PW-1/11) jsing exorbitant price of f 27''^ January,2000, it plar (Ex.PW-1/1,1) was includingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,lane. by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar the acquired lands in cannot be treated as a representativeprice for question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosing'rea situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is required whetheradoptionofL& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-Detei-minedRates for the alternateplots by|the DDA ought to be listic price of similarly to be considered as to adopted to determine the true market value of question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market highlightedby ApexCourtin its decisionreportedas P. RamReddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority?HyderabadandOrs., 1995 (2) SGC305 are as under;- '12. However, in eitherofthe saidcases Whetherit be the the acquired lands in alue of acquired lands determinationofthe marketvalueofthiaa,...._ """ buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the vricefetchedby saleofplots in awelldevelopedlayoutin t^e neighborhood LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectGdAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IW.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur quired land Math

¶31or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots 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 whichtheplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section () of the Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetched y the sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands beLmes available, then what couldbe^doneis tofind out.th\ marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevantdate of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto he actualuse to which it wasputand increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the'balisofevidenceto be made available in that regard Asmall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out accordingto its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving inc)^asedvalue for such bufidingpotentialityarises onlywhen there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof • dL'^'^T f that there no immediate amTanl'^- formedin the I In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land chargedby the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,dei transfetrmgperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto're •rates/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the elopingthe same, and Court in Lai Chand. y upon the allotment market value of the adjoining undeveloped fi-eehold lands. FolloWinl the dictum of Lai if hni/%j4 \ . Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court an Sushil Kama, (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlandsas beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueof LA.APP No 29J/2OM&c Th LA.A P1 AppealsOfVillageBijwasan ' pp. NO. lia/2010&connectedappealsofVillagePochanpur in Jai Singh (Supra) the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightl}'not adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates fof alternateillotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsir. question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is Avhet methodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessing land in questionwhiletakinginto consideration ler progressive increase the market value of the ;he earlier acquisitionof ) h the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland.otheryillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned.seniorcounselfor the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per aonum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for tfc Notification for development.of Dwarka-Pt Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-I the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the c and therefore, the enhancement granted by tl;ie Reference Court is unjustified. period intervening the ase-I and the instant , still the price fixed by foresaidescalatedprice

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good ir view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 years be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighboiiring md beyondthat it may land. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew yeqrs,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. , gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarl[aPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,itwdulc be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the' market value b^ ^oviding appropriate LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur [n the instant case, the m escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandof the previous3'^ears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, . learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwaiTanted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SiishilMmA escalation @ 10% per annum. After having oerused the decision in oushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and a determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been gr upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted 30ve the market value anted and so, by relying by the Reference Court @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% pdr annum.In this vieAvof the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe resppnden are dismissed. iption of Government's by the Reference Court

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether -adci minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%:perannum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. 1'^ April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves'to not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum ra pertaining to the Notificationin question haj learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe. acqu be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificatioiiof 24"^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban.It is tm^e thatvide aforesaidNotificationo use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut thatby I.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan 17\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur be fiirther increased or :es of agricultural land been assailed by the Ted land had ceased to the year 1994 the land tself is not sufficient to i \ presume that the acquired lands had gainec. considered as developed lands. The evidence le: aspectof there being any developmentin and a in question. Not only this, even the sale exer Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appelhnts disclosethatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.'

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence issuance of Notificationunder Section4of th^ Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on acxo acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrelyu in VillagePochanpurto a religiousinstitutionai of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without;le establishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe s Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur an VillageSamalldia(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 rely sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Dev (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensation for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificat potentiality for being •d is lacking on the vital -ound the acquired lands, iplars of Radha Swami on record that till the pon the sale of the land id another sale instance ading any evidence to ale exemplars of Radha 1 the sale exemplar of with the acquired lands h the sale instance of •eated to be sufficient ing upon the aforesaid referred dictum of the ziopment Corporation deserves to be awarded •on in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which -generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potcntiahty.Taking note of the fact that tliere i.s a gap between what lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur •• •I would be expectedto be the market growth ^d what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagricu; to be reasonable basis for assessingthe mark landsmJaiSingh(Supra)as well as inSusltilkumar(Supra)andIfmd no reasonto talce adifferentview than the one whichhad beentaken b> coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra),

¶38Ihis Court is of the consideredview that the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Govermnent'sminiipm price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe'acc[uiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVilkgeBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspect6fhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and BharatPetroleumDepots and of Railwayline passingthrough Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters videyroad starting from NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartI acquired lands in two portions, and there bein vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowrnis:iedthe attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthisCourt, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly tural price has been held ;t value of the acquired the Reference Court in and Part IT, dividingthe Farm Houses in the assumehigherbuildingpotentiahtybeingin vicin ^ ^ Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseoverand abovemaitet value of the acquired lands as assessed by.the Reference Court on accountof the higlierbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the I IA a''''' ^ connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ity of DwarkaPhase-J. settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan V5. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquired land had a buildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentiality. "

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be veiy difficultto provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the never be achieved in the matters of assessing; broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichper with equivalenceby uniformly applying the G prices for the agriculturallands for computingt the acquiredlands as there are no special fea,tur lands differentlyand so, appellantsofVillageP par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants,of Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon fact that exactness can air compensation, it is suades me to treat them overnment' s minimum le fair market value of 3s to treat the acquired Dchanpur are treated at Village Bharthal and the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby these matters on account of the aforesaid the Reference Court in locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan..Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur .r_- • the appellants of Village Pochanpur are alsc indicated above. Thus, the market value of the three villages in questionis detennined @ ?16,f Categoi-y ^A' land and @ ^14,69,600/-per bj lands in question. allowed to the extent acquired lands of these 0,000/- per^iiigh^for the for the Category 'B' -V \ \-i-<

¶41On the aforesaid enliancement in the statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionP'. the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2i gianted, exceptfor the periodwherethereis ^ delay in filingthe appeal, compensation awarded, ct, 1894 as explained in 001 (93) DLT 569 are for which period of delay no interest on the eiiha be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto pr need compensation shall 3poi*tionate costs.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid tenxis with direction to the compensationamount,if any, depositedby eithe General of this Court, to the concerned Referen be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb Registry to remit the r side with the Registrar ce Court. Decree sheets C JUDGE /sJO •V- /7- -hur-'y lJ\.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan I.A.App.No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur fl' + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT LA.APP. 1195/2008 ! RANBIR SHARMA Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaa Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Ve: Tewathia, Advocates :• Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rolitas, 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 Mi-.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& AiSJR. NEW DELHI ...... Appellant n, Mr.Jai Prakash, rma, Mr.Jitin Advocate utela, Advocate y, Advocates. Litela, (Advocates for by UOI) 'cate for anki and Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MoHtraoJadhavand • Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.I^auJnudiKiran Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Spthi Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,M •Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates' CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR ^ order' .12.01.2012 C.M.Aonl. 752/2012fVn. ; This is an applicationfor seeldngtypograjphicalcorrectionin Orderof6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave Respondents Ms. Amita Singh, r.Kunal Sharma and forDDA. accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Pagel w • \ ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applic givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicaleiTor pointed out by decision of 6'^ Januaiy, 2012 is that in pars aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationas whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordin^I allowedand it is orderedthatthe referencetO;'' no; 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as correctionsbe carriedout forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicatiols itionhas alreadybeen the respondent in thfe graph no: .40 of the sessed is 'per bigha', disputed by learned iy, this apphcationis ;r bigha'inparagraph per acre'. Necessary pe: JANUARY12,2012 ,pkb itandsdisposed of JUDGE •LA.App.No.1195/2D08 Page 2

$-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 84/2012 SUNIL SARDANA Appellant Through; Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates versus UNION OF ESDDIA& ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Paramhans, Advocate for Mr.Amn Birbal, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR