Om Prakash v. UOI & Anr

ORDER

06.0L2012 For orders see LA.App.No.1195/2008,titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India &Anr.'. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb --(StINiL GAUR) JUDGE Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. iJ^ TSiE HIGH. COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November Fronounced on: Januarv iS,20Jl VA20J2 (GRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BH.ART RANBJR SHARMA Appellant llirough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,M Maan, Mr.R.SA'^erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advoca Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate Mr.RohTas, Advocate. Mr.Raghvivindei: Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S,Negi and .Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roiit and.Mr.B.K,Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ajrisari, Advocates, Mi-.PankaJ V'ivek,Advocate Mr.RaJesh Yadav.Mr.i.DeepakKhosla,Mr.Samitijhosia and Mr.i:)hanan)ay Mehlawat, .Advocates Mr.H.vS.RaiiLela, /advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul 1ripach.i,Advocaie, Mr.N.S..Negiand !Vl'r.!{.S.R.ai!le!a,(./Advocatesfor respondent in appiialsfiled by {JO!:) j.Smila ;es versus UNION 01"' INDIA & ANR. Respondents T'hrouoh; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAd\'ocatewit.h Mr.Scinja) Pathak, Mr.lVio.ii.itraa.iadha-i-and Ms.Na:\';in:yvva.in Ms.K.KaumudiKiran. Advocatesfor I.AC/iIOI Mr.AjayVerma,.Ms.BeenashavvSorn. Mr,Mukcs.h Kumar,Mr S.K.Sethi,Mr.Pav/anMathiir,Mr.Kuna Sha]-mH, AdvoCiiu; for [)DA .A.APP.4I2/200H lA.APP.453/2008; LA.APP.688/2008& IIMii(L4096/2008 1Cross-'ObiectioiLS)./(.A.APP.452/2008-CM.No.5990/20]0 fCross-Obiec ;lions); ^CM.No,433/2000(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.7i}i'/:|)08& C!\lNo.f)10/i009 (Cross-Obiections): .1... \. Apj'.768.''200S: lA.App. rio, 1.iy;,/.-;00.S&coi'nccledAppealsof VillagoBh;ir!.h;il :'^.Ai:ip.No. /94/?010S connun.edAppc.jl.sof Village:-BiJwjiijn IA.App. ^^.l. &connt-aodAppcaiiofViilaRC:Pochanpur l.A.APP.77{ Pa|:i.' >/2()0S:, ',i 7.9 (Cross-Objections); L.A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; CM.No.709/2009 LA.APP.974/2008 LA.APP.976/2008; (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.173 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Obje LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.77|2/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); •LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Obje LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP,798/: CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.9 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/; CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections);, LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.8 ctions); & M/2009 & C)6/2009 LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2 008 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 0/2008 ctions); LA.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; l,,A.APP.i047/2008;LA,.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008; LA.APP.l051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LyV.APP.l052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections);- l.,.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.10 ]6/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No,6 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP,1095/2008; LA.y\PP.l103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009(Cross-Objections);LA,APP.l'l08/:' CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/ CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);.. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/ CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Ob).ectio.n.s);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CM.No.38|6/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA,APP.l 121/2008; LA.APP.l 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Obje LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Obje LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP.l 135/2008 & CM,No.7442/2009 (Cross-Obje I.-A.APP.1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 14 LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157./2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.77 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1159/2008; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.l 1( LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 16^/2008; LA.APP.l 170/2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA..APP.117 LA,A.PP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP. 117.9/2008; LA.APP.118 2008 & 2008 & 2008 & ctions); ctions);. 0/2008; mm 6/2008; 3/2008; 1/2008; LA.APP.l 182/2008; LA.APP.l 183/2008& CM.No.6933./2009 (Cross-Objections); ].>A.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.l 185./2008; LA.APP.l 186/2008& CM..No.7013/2009 I.A.App. No. .1195/7.008& connGctcidAppeal.sof Village Bharthsl I.A App, No, '.'.94/20.10St connected Appealsof VillageBijv/a,san LA,App, No, & connectpcl Appeals of VillagePochanour' Page 2. of 23 % (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP.119 LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP.119 LA.APP. 1198/2O08& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 120 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP.121 LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP.1225 CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241 CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP.125 LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP.1276/2008;LA..APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.127p. LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.128 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.3 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.5 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7] 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.7 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Obje LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP.13 LA.APP. 137/2009; • LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011

1.A.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.224,/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & (Cross-Ob)ections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245./2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP. 136/2009; l.A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.249/2009;

1..A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; l.A.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.295/2009; •LA.APP.447.'2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009: LA.APP.513/2009; , LA.APP.45/2010; i.A.APP.l 138/2008; l.A.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP.I201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP.13 LA.APP. 14 LA.APP. 191 LA.APP.20 CM,No.70: (Cross-Obje LA.APP.22 CM.No.72(l LA.APP.24 LA.APP.3 0 LA.APP.45 LA.APP.48 LA.APP. LA.APP.50 LA.APP.51 LA.APP.56 LA.APP.4 LA.APP.117 2/2008; 7/2008; D/2008;. /2008; '2008& '2008& 2/2008; /2008; ^k/2008; 9/2009; 9/2009; 1/2009; itions); 5/2009; p/2009; 5/2009; /2009; 1/2009; 7/2009 vLions); 3/2009;' 6/2009 5/2009; 5/2009; 3/2009; /2009; 5/2009; 1/2009; 3/2009; 7/2009; 5/2010; K/2008;. (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the I.,and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December Ot Pronounced on: January Ot LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). DJiVBNDERKUMAR ...... Appellant Through: .Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh 2011 2012 lA.App. iMo 1195/Z008 fi connectcd Appeals of Villagt! BharUial i.A.App. No. 294/2010& connectadAppnaLsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App No. lll/ZOlO & connectc;dAppcaLsof Village Pochanpu,' Pago Jof29 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Roiitray, Advocates for appe (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46; 49, 50-69, 73, versus UOl & ANR LA.APP. r.,A.A,l^P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. i:,A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA..APP. LA.APP. i.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP,. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate \/ith Mr.Sanjay Kuraar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advoqates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeal • filed by UOL Mr.VirendraSingh,Advocatein R-68|,71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advoc|a,tes for IJDA. LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 22L/20J0 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 • LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. LA..W. 362/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP, LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. LA./VPP.

731./2010 LA.APP. LA.APP: •764/2010 .LA.APP. .LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & oss-objections) llant 5, 76) 1/2010 5,'20]0 0/2010 226/2010 :M/2010 ^5/2010 294/2010 45/2010 19/2010 53/2010 58/2010 Ei9/2010 53/2010 )8/2010 ^2/2010 26,-'2010 7p2/2010 828/2010 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&'B/LA/13417 dated 13.12 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Awar 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND • L • LA,App. No, & connoctRd Appeals of Village BharthnI LA,App. No,294//010 & connoctfid Appeals of VillageBijwasan !.A.App, No. Ilj/,"i010& con,neclodAppealsofVillage PochanptT Page 4 .2000 i No. of 29 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18 Pronounced on: January 06 .A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHA.T RAM AND ORS. Through; ..... Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to to 49, 59, 63 to71) Mr.S.B.Kumar, Advocatefor appellai LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appe in.R-22) a IV , 2011 2012 m ,44 versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents l\4r.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitra Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain., Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advoc^ltes for DDA. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. J.A.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.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 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 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 525/201 ] 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA./VPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. It in ant 56/2010 15/2010 $50/2010 70/2010 06/2010 93/2010 12/2010 34/2010 35/2010 7/2010 58/2010 18/2010 6^1/2011 9/2011 4p9,/2011 22/2011 • 35/201 1 I.A,App, No, 1,1.95/2008&conncctndAppealsof VillageBharlhal LA,App. No, 2.94/2010&connectedAppealsof Vlllagt!BIjwasan LA,App No :il/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur, Page 5 0 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, i:?94 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi)

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcreiore with the consentoflearned counsel for the parties pres3nt at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,re ating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedof b}' this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, [894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact l)lock comprisingof thirteen Revenue Hstates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,BijwasanandPochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the afoi-esaid three villagesstood acquired by the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting compensation ^13.82 lacs per acr^ for 15lock A (level field -• witn top soil) and @ ^12.32 lacs per acn; for Block'B'(without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acqi LA.App. No. 119:i/2008& connected Appoals.ofVillageBharthal, l.A.App. No. ?,9'i/?0.10& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. n.l/20n.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 6o ired agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourtvide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@ ?15.00 lacs per acre foT the appellants'accpired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per ac;re for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; wljereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sou the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of I Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive En^jineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag Ors., (2011)2 see 246; AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State ofGoa andAm\,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana andAnr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. S Tehsildar(Land Acquisition)& Ors,, (2010)3 SCC 661; Ranvir and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakir

(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer,-Jdlgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (sincedeceased)through LRs vs. Union of India & 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of-Haryana & 2010(9) SeALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab Ors., 20 SeALE 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. S. Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568;,W.P.(C)No. 4143/2003'ti Smt Imiu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03 Special Land A^cquisitionOfficer & Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, 7 SC'C 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive ?ht by .upees jought 'pedal lA.App. No..119.')/?008& connoclHdAppeals of VillageBharthai l.A.App. No, 7.94/2010 &• connected Appeals of Villap>e Bijwasan iA.App. No 131/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur ' ' ' Ors., 11 '(9)

(2009) aie of ;led as .2010;

(2011) ineer, 7 of 29 s Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15] MsalSingh Union ofIndia & Am\, 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandi of India and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs, Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyamma!and Anr vs. Special (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; k Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs, Union of India & 176(20]]) DLI 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Si^ Delhi Development Authority & Ann, decided on 24.04.2008 Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 SCC Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/20.07 titled as Bed Ram vs. Unii India, decided,on 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia,

(170)DLT371.

¶6On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outj was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appe that the locationand situationof the acquiredagriculturalland has first understood in order to appreciate its potential which mus adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over a peric time and the same cannot be limited to the near llrture alone. 7, It was pointed out by Mr.R.S/romar,counsel for appellants Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of'Village Biijw istrial Union ukiar in ra. ihesh 2238; 627; APP. 2010 et, it lants ;o be t be ^d of that asan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividing it into two parts, i.e., on-theeasternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New L»e]hi LA.App. No. 1],9?/2008 & coiinoictedAppealsof Village Bhaiiha! lA.App. No. 291/2010& connectodAppealsof Village Hljwasan lA.App. No, m/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' g .,g and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road lO'O 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 IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eilastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extersion

0.1 IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndian Oil Depots and thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands of VillageBharthaland VillagePochanpur vere also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras •'vere also acquired for the development of Phase-IL, Dwarka Sub-(^ity. Attention was drawn to the aks sizraslm'eopto highlight that the boundary oT Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel fbi-the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in thie light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired' land to be agricultural in spitd of Notification of 16^'^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the tiree villages in question was changed from agricultural' to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notifica.tionof24''''October,199

¶9.It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have lieen Vv'rongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. i t.A.App. No. liy!)/;'.008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharlhal l.A.App.,No.?.94/?.()10& connecled Appealsof Village Bijwasan l/.App. No. .lll/ilOlO & connected Appealsof Village Pochanpur Pago 9 of 23 \; Redd!& Ors, vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, h995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors,, 2010(9) SCIALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over a period of tineand the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if afttir the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the.land to any use, it wouldnot mean that there is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale I3eeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacis and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannbt be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplarsare ovcrv bccause of any special advantagesand as per settled legal propos laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State oj andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsought taken as representingthe market price ofthe land which comes to lacs per acre arid since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appel are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliancc placed by ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circlerates for detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. 11• Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquired land was sough Mr.R.(}odara,learned counselfor the appellantson the basis of the DO rates hxed by the Government'andalso on the basis of determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alterL plots in the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situation[nd poicntuihtyof the acquired land, determinationof its market value ued ition Goa ;o b(j. ?57 Eint:s the bv L ):re-W.App. MO. ii9V200«&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal .App. No. :?J4/?.0.1.0&connGctedAppealsof Village;Bijwasan App No. connmedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 10 of IS 29 • V, sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates o developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLin of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugned judgmenton following grounds a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the yiward No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.J0.2002 being flmved in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated

7.7.2007) b) Does not account for the facl that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates, of land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land. Acquisition Act, 1894 M>as issued. c) Valuing the land, on the basis of the letter dated.

11.9.2001 issued by the Government ofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the laiv laid, down by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar. 2010(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and. other factors which as per ekablished law has to be considered,before ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in the recent case, of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deed,showing higher rate should not be disregarded in. and ^the Pre-ited the IJ\.App. No.119,'j/2008& connGctHdAppnalsof VillagG liharlhal LA.App, No. ?94/2010 & conncctnd Appnalsof Village Bijwa.san LA.App. No. 1.11/2010& connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur V case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana. Molu Dessai v^. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensationupon'a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate tha.t the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthai was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came 'now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for land, use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, • commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"^ am.endm.ent' of the Constitution of India, w.e.f^ 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of M>hich the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land, is situated, M>as deemed a municipal area, and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Panchayat elections were held. in. the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Suprem.e Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of Ind.ia and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser would pay for, the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. ,2 had also lA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connucled Appcal.sof Village Bharthai l.A.App, No. 291/ZOlO& connficledAppealsof Village Biiwa.san l.A.App. No. 111/2010& connectcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page IZc V f 29 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is M'hollyunderdeveloped land. ])• The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityof change of the use of the land although the land yvas acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthe said land. In Sanpinthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held, that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a. relevant factor. While determining value of the property^ acquired the fact whetherthe land has got buildingpotentiality to be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said, land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered,as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfiittire."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsofthis appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantso;^ the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfol]l;he appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnaridYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof !.A.App, No. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VlllaBeBijwassn l-A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof Villagepochanpur " . • d • . rv urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the ch4nge in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar fs of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major Gem Ors. Vs, Union of India ^ Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and thk Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infect tHe sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughttb have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct iharket value ot the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals. .15. • Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthat thoughas per Section5I-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence for determination of the market value unless and until the sanae is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fency of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be cons:dered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin /( ra-Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Unibn of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand. w. Union of India and.

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SusMl Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp indreasc in price in a shortperiod cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for biich shaip increase are explained by producingin evidence the ieller LA.App No. 1195/2008& conne.ctedAppealsof Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan W.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 1 of 29 Page! 1 and tlie purchaseras no prudentperson having Imowledgeof the; prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay such ahigherpay as refle the sale instance of Radha Syvaini Satsang, Beas, relied upon appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contend behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rate DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decis Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed coordinateBenchofthis Court in SushilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urgDd by Mi.Sanjay loddai, leained senior counsel for the RespondentsA^ross-objectorsthat the same has already been factoredinto, while fixirg the minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governm(;ntas on 1-^' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been errone determined by the Reference Court, as in SmM Kumar (s appreciation@10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thattheieis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacq lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impu judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement b> the ReierenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cioss objections to the aforesaid extent. '

¶17Altei-considering the rival submissions advanced by both sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenc record and the decisionscited,what emergesis thatthe true marketv of the comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awil usual 2ted in :)y tlie ed on s/Pre-on of by a lusly jpra) lA.App, No. lig:;/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthjl !.A,App,No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwa.san !A.App. No, 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 15 of23 -lired Rned th.e 4 on ilue ing seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. '\l\/'hile dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Hmym Ors.., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words "(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its coniinercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityof the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, coniinercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) possibility of obtaining M'ater and electric supplyfor occupants ofbuildings to beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquired landfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in' the vicinity or close proximity ofthe acqvdred land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and (vii.) lands around the acquired land,or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few. "

¶18I'he potentiality of land for the purpose,of development as alsc building purposes depends-upon a large number of factors. For the purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose lA.App. No. ,1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No.?.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No.111/20.10& connected Appeals of Village Poclianpur Page 16 r for ^aid for f 29 i which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Count in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Ccurt in Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a.ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Am vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from,the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic differ(;nce either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them evei as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be rei^rred to Vvith advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note of die fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. T'he pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court'in Anjani Molii Dessai (Su deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App. No. 11.S5/200S& conriGctGdAppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App, No. & connected Appojalsof Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 11.172010&conneclcdAppealsof VillagePoclianpur Pji{,en Dra) f 29 "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, M>ill be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price, But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patii (Supra), which ar^: as . follows ''It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a. willing vendee and the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value."

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired land reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for developm.ent in the area, and-the dem.and for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, yvithout any sudden spurts or jumps: (A.App. No, 1195/Z008 & connected Appfials of Village Bhartlial i.'V.App. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA,App. No. 1]1/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur Page 18(|)f 29 as # On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as Compared to rural areas. In 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 development and 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 urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum., the corresponding increases in rural arms would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%)per annum.. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in. the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then, the increase to be applied would, depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of rjearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is upto four to-fiveyears. Beyond thai it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a., neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a. few years, m.ay become unsafe and unreliable standard, where the gap is larger. For example,for determining the m.arket value of a land acquired-in 199.2, adopting the anniccd increase method with reference to a sale or I.A.App. No.119!j/200!;& co.nnfictndAppealsof Village Bhartha! l.A.ApD. No. 29'l/20.10& connncted Appealsof Village Bijwasan lA.App No. .11.1/2010& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the >ate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurts in prices affectingthe verystandard of increase: "

¶24This Court-is mindfulofthe dictum ofthe Apex Courtin Har StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regaj con:iputation of compensation for the acquired lands by ado comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Courtin Ii5 (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different sifuationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for finining of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value yvith reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform,rate ofcom.pensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and arciund acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the perioJ in question are not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyre lied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSymmiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ^52 lacs to ^62 lacs peracre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha Swam.iSatscng, Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswas,situatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue;of the land in the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Debds ding 3ting IDC LA.App. No. 1.1.95/2008& coniicctRdAppealsofVillage Bharthal l.A.App. No. 2S'V'20.10& connuctodAppealsofVillageBijwasan l./\.App.No. .l:l.l/20]0& connGctndAppealsofVillage Pocha.npur (Hx.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from ^:)2 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars - Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependentupon the nature and situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired hiid in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be tres.ted as disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in "^/illage Pocharipurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land hsis not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purcl.iaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high pr ce for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swaini Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 tried as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 •and in LA, App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of \'illage Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence •' that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetil acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands wei developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prev l./^.App.No, 1.195/2008& conncictedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l-AApp, No, 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanp.uf Page their c not a-iling 1 of 29 market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in. the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds (1<:x.PW-l/4 to Itx.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant pri(:eof ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,20C needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale ^eed (Ex.P W-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lanes in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lanqs in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired Imds highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P, Ram Reddy and Ors. R Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban DeveiopMent Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land, with buildingpotentiality y\>ith reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood LA.App. No, 119!j/2008 & connected. Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.App. No, 294/;'.0.1.0& connected Appeals of Village Biiwasan l,A,App, No. .l.J..l/^.0.10& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur Page 22of29 0, it was

¶31or M'hetherit he the determination of the market value ofthe acquired land, with building potentiality with reference to theprice fetched by sale of buildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to befetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of theparties, with reference to the price which the plots could havefetched ifsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notifi,cation under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood, of the acquired lands becomes available, then M>hat could be done is tofind out the m.arket value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section. 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase, to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only 'when there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate d.em.a.nd., as such, for building plots even ifform.ed in the acquired land. " In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charge the 13DA afler acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Q (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotijnent ratcs/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Chand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Su and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market valu 1 by and rf\ the pra) the e of IA.App. No...ll9|j/2008 & conncctod ApppaLs of Village Bharthol J-A.App. No. Z!M/2010& c0nnc!ct0dAppeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/2010& connected Appeal.?of VillagePoclianpur Page Z3 3f 29 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternate allotments for fixing the marketvalue of the acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value ^f the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken fro n the year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervenini?, the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentof DwarkaPhase-II,still the price fixed by the i^and AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to idopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe , I and unreliable standard where the gap,is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dv/arka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. .11.9!j/2008& connected Appealsof Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof Village BIjwa.san (.A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur PageZilDfZi) escalationover the market value of the nearby land of the previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel foi' the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Col it has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebench of this Court in Smhil Kumar (Supra), has grsinted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Smhil Kumar (Supra), I find that 10%o increase on account of higher potentialit}/ of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Smhil Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this \iew of the matter,the cross-objectionsof therespondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Govern minimumpricc of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the Reference is reasonablecriteria for determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice i agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1^' April, 2000 till the ( Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increa not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultura pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed b Tient's Court 3y the br th e ate of ied or land V trie learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994thi land use ol the acquiredland had changedbut that by itself is not suffici I.A.App. No, :i9r)/2dG8& connKctfidAp|jG;ilsofVillage Bharthai LA.App. No. <(94/2010 connRCtadAppealsolVillage Bljwasan LA.App. No. ]11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageI'ochanpur |>ap^2 :nt to iOf29 I •( presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for Ijeing consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquired1 m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha 6v Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpuipose. j7. Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityol'the acquiicd lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, appellantscould have laid theirhands on otliersale instancesin the mquestion.But, indeed appellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance ol Village Samallcha (Iix.PW-l/l1) without leading any evidence establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplai of VillageSamalldia(Hx.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredla and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be suffici ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the afores sale instances. Therefore, in view of.the afore-referreddictum of Apex Couit in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of tj: minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to high potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between wli,t t l-A.App. No. 119!V;?008&connc'ctedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectoclAppealsof VillageBljwasan I LA.App. No. .1.11/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillage PochanpLU ' vital ancls ''ami sale the Act, hen urea ids of 2nt aid he le in er would be expected to be the market growth and what the mark<it had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has bee:! held I to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been tal< coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Cc en by iirt in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasaii has iltural stion. illage lation m the rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agrici lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in que rending of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and V Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the sit of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out fro evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through V Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide, road startiiig from illage NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on accoi n the :)f the int of aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, cei-|tainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above n value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Coii|r[; on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands l.A.App. No. 1195/21)08 & connectE;clAppeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No.' 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur s the Page^^yofzg settled legal position aptly highlighted by'the Apext Court in Mlrza NmisherwcmKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in theseword "When^ once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibdityof the acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto proi'idea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instanicases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices tor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in .V Kumar(Supra),1am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCbi these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advant providmgahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in ques

¶40Accordingly,these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe mattetvalue assessedbj thi: ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Vil Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appcllaatsofVillagePochanpurat pari the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appeal and :rt in ages ion. age vith of LA.App, Mo. 1..1.95/2008&cormnclcdAppealsof VillageBharth.l lA.App. No. ?.91A'010a connectedAppealsof Village'Bijwasan • 1A.App, No. .111/2010&connectedAppeal.sof VillagePochanpur Page 2S 0 29 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the indicatedabove. Ihiis, the market value ofthe acquiredlands oj threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perj^ig^" Category 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per bjim for the Catego lands in-question. e!Xtent ' these br the rj.-(1 y 'Er

¶41On the aloresaid enhancement in the compensation awitrded, staiulorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 560 arc granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe a.])peal, ioi vN'hich periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid, 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42Ihe above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar Cjcneral of this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree s:ieets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb lA.App, No. 1195/2008&connRclodAppealsof Village;Bharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan 1A.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur .jr •Jn- ^7S"'- , ;r •.I" £'• V ' I ,1 ••• • IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SI-IARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mi-.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfoi respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSinghj Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). this is an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrection Orderof6^''January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the noti in LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page I ofthe application.Advancecopy oftitis applicationhas already givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointedout by the respondenti decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40, of aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bi whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by lea counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicatic allowedand it is orderedjhatthereferenceto 'perbigha' in paragi no: 40 of LA.App.No: 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Neces correctionsbe earned out forthwith. In view of: the a.tbresaid,this apphcationstandsdisposedof. been in the JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb [L GAUfi the ^na', ned >n is •aph jiary A.App.No.1195/2008 Page

:i= % -I- % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 412/2008 OM PRAKASH Through: Reserved on: November j g", 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SaraitKhoslaand Mr.Dhananjay Mehlavvat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondent in appeals filed by UOl) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.SanjayPathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.MulceshKumar, Mi'.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Shtona, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR