Rajinder Singh v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Am.'. JANUARY 06,2012 pkb rUNIL 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. / (j IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ' Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.1195/2008O^ILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARA4A Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Ajnit ]V|aar Maan, Mi.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jiti Mr. Anand Yadav and Ms. An: • Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghiivinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rai|tela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. I\4r.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepal and ]\4r.Dhananjay Mehlawat Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiiir, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H^S.Raiitela,(Advocatesfor respondent in appeals filed by UOr; versus LiNION OF INDIA & ANR. .. Appellant , Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita n Tewathia, Advocates ta Tomar, Advocates. : Khosla., Mr.Samit Khosia Advocates • Respondents Througii: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanja)' Pathak, Mr.Mohitraojadhav £,nd Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kauraudi Kiran, Adifocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AJayVerma, Ms.BeenashiwSoni,Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr.S.K.Setln,Mr.Pa4 Sharma, Advocate for DDA /an Mathur, Mr.Kunal .[.A.APP.412/2008& CM.No.4096/2008 (Cros.'ti-Oljiections);LA.APP.452/2008* La.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& CM.N;o.5990/2010(Cross-Objeclions)' LA,APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Obje ^ CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.76 :tions); LA.APP.701/2008 & 8/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; lA.Aijp.No. liy.S/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharlhal 1^.App. Mo. ?.9-;./2.010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IA.App. No. l:l.l/?.030&connecladAppealsofVillagt!Pochanpur Page 1 ol 2!) m LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-ObjectionsVLA APP 779/9nnp CMN?61]S&^M.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);Ia.APP.774/2008& LM.No.61J/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP''77^/2008-I Aapp 77^^/onnc LA.APP.777/2008;LA.APP.782/2008& WV CM.No 615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2bo8- & CM No 931/2009 m°No°wToo9 LA.APP.806/I008;LA.APP.813/2008& CM.NoJ795,/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.8l4/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Closs-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP'819/2008-LA APP 89n/9nn8 LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008 LA.APPSS^Og LA APP 8^^90n«' LA.APR844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;'LA.APpl7^/2'o08& CM.No779/^^^^^^^ (Cioss-Objections),LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No799/2009 (Cross ObiectinnqV LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008;LA.APP.PIsS;'LaPR9M CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959, LA.APP.974/2008 & . CM.No.519./2009 (Cross-Obie (Cross-ObjectioT);LAAPR^^^ CA4No'^HsIo^OOS LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008&CM.No785' CM.No.420/2009(Cross-0|3jec '2008; ctions); & LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.975/2008; CM.No.572/2009 'AAPPinsi/9nn«7 ^^loss-upjeotions); LA.APP.1050/2008; i:a:ap'p.;"51;'oo1TcSi ^ tions); LA.APP.1046/2008; /2009 (Cros^-Objections); tions); LA.APP.1050/2008; CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Object CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1055/:ons);LA.APP.1054/'2008 & 008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & CMNn7S9/9nn rn ^ ^^•^•^^^•^^^-^/^^^u»;i-A.Al'P.iO57/2008 & CM.No 752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM No 1557/9011 &CM No 9448/70ns ™'^'';A^''2/2008(Cross-Qbjeotions);LA.APP.1086/2008 CM Nr? 828/200^(0^^^^^^ LA.APP.1109/20108;LA.APP.]110/2008& CM N0 3831 -009 LA.APP.Lin/2608;LA.APP.1112/2008& ^C n HK ^ <^^^'°''-Obiections);LA.APP.l113/2(^08 & CM.No3826/2f)0Q (Cioss-Objections);LA.APP.1115/2008; LA.APP.Ill6/2008-TAAPP iVo™^^^ lIpE:SiSISSli IeISS la.aw:!Ise^rL^rPRu'j™^ la.app.1140/2008: (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1159/2008; LA.APP.1161/2i : I 008 & CjM.No.7774/2009 008; LA.APP.l166/2008; ons); LA.APP.1168/2008; iA..Ar.p NO. liyy?.008&connoctedAppealsofVillageBharthal i.A.,\r.p..l\)o. ?.y4/2(,V10&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan -A.App,Mc. .11.1/2010&conncctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 2 of 29 , % MttKJKaRligJte CM No LA,APP.(22p008;LA.APP.1225/2008& CMNo384^9 LA.APP.1226/i008; LA.APP.1241/2008& M=mmm LAAPP 73/200Q ^ rV/M Vino/n^^^ (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 La:aPP.79/2009; LA.ApSopT SiN^S LA.APP,108/2009, LA.APP.109/2009; L4,Si2?/fo09 LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.137/2009 LaXpP 3 2009 LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LAAPpllSol: LA.APP.162/'2009; LA.APP.187/2009; LA APPJ9d/2009' LA.APP.197/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APP.!,!99/2009- (0-0^^0?^?°°"^^'LA.APP.203/2009;LA.APP:208/2((o9&CMNo 7027/200' (Cioss-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009& CMNo97'0/90n rPv.c ok C •.-A.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA^So09;'i'Sp.S LA:APR224/2009;LA.APP.227/2009;'hA.A??.liWl (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LAAPP^:'45 •LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009;' LAAPP29S LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP447; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP480 LA,APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009;LA app'Iqvoooo: LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP503/P009-LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA APP 509/E009' LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP513/2009-LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APPi45/2010' LA.APP.1138 & '2009; 2009; 2009; 2009; LA.APP.I177/2008;LA.APP.-1201/2008;LA.APP.23L'2clo9 Relatingto NotificationNo. F,10(30)/96/L&B/LAjl3'ii/aat£ 26'%02"2nn'^iiT?i^ AcquisitioiiAct,1894 & 26,^002-2003dated23.10.2002.VillageBliarthal.DeSiii) LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA. APP.3 05/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.APP.481/2009 .LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP,48/20]0 LA.APP. 1176/2008 13417 dated 13.12.2000 Award No. (GRID-B) Re^fyed on: Decp.mhpr08. 2011 tLQMtmcedon:Janunrv~06.2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEVENDER KUMAR Through: Ita'' VillageBharthal '^...xpp. h-o. 294/2010&ccnnectGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan L-Ap|..No. J &comiectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr." ... Appellant ^irendraSingh versus UOI & 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: 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. 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.AP^P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.AP?. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APf. LA.AP?. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. Respondents A-lr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kunicr Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.lj^IavlinSwain,Advocates forUOI/LAQ Mr.S.K.Solariki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals filed by UOI. Mr.VirendrafiJingh,AdvocateinR-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihaj-Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. 49/2010 4/2010 9/2010 23/2010 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 7E5/2010 731/2010 764/2010 364/2010 9^/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 LAAPP. 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..^PP. 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-objecticns) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/i3417 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitioni 28/2002-2003,"'VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND IA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. Nu. 29.1/;'.0ic& conrmctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

1.A.App. i\)o. .111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePoclisnDur dated

13.12.2000 ^ct, 1894 & Award No. % (GRID-C) Reser ed on: December IS. 201J Pronouncedon: Janunrv0^^ 701? LA.APP. 111/2010 SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: ]\4r.B-D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout,Ad R-16, 20, 23 to 2( to 49, 59, 63 t9 7; Mr.S.B. Kumar, LA.App.No. 61, t Mr.Rajesh Yadav in R-22) Appellants Mr.S.K.SoIanld and locates for appellant(in , 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 ) Advocatefor appellantin 4, 65/2011) Advocatefor appellant versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 1 A APP. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/20] 0 for UOI/LAC ,, Mr.BankeyBiKari Sharma and Mf.So for DDA. LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP^4^2010 L^A'PR 396/2010 A.APP. 432/2010 ' LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 639/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LA.APP. 1052/2010 LA.APP. 116/2011 •LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 485/20] 1 LA.APP. 525/2011 LA.APP. 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APM LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP^ LA.APPr LA.APF1 l.A.APPil Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NiivlinSwain,Advocates Sharma, Mr.Kunal mer K.Seth, Advocates 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 2^1/2010 3p5/2010 3^/2010 3^2010 .4:^3/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 7too 10 61/2011 117/2011 129/2011 52^1/2011 52j6/2011 591/2011 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 rrxAPP 420/2010 -46€m LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. 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. 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/201] Ia A,.'' VillageBharthal •1a T f ®connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan• •A.App. No. Ui/2010&connectedAppealscfVillagePochanpur Page 5 of Zn % I (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)9(S-I

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

06.01.2012

¶1Since-the grounds on which enhancement

¶1sought by the appellants in these bunch of thereforewith the consentof learned counsel,fcr the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch'of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bhcrthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this common

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopm ir ni Delhi, commenced with the issuance c December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Lan'd fe B/LA/13417 dated Requisition Act, 1894 & ge Pochanpur, Delhi) of the compensation is appeals are identical, order. ;nt of 'Dwarka Phase-f Notification of 13'" ^.cquisiuon Act, 1894, pertammg to vast tract of agricultural land i:i one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includin i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. f j-Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide g villages in question, in the aforesaid three :hree separateAwards, i.e.. Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/^002-2003;andAward NO.30/2002--2003granting compensation@kl2 Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and:@ f12.32 lacs per acre for Bloc.k'B'(withoutop soil). j I

¶4Dissatisfiedwiththe assessmentofmarketlvalueoftheiracquired l-A.App.Wo. 1195/2008S. connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal \A.App. No. 294/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I .82 lacs per acre for agricultural lands, appellants had sought refere the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Referen f judgment had enlianced compensation@ ?i5. appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' and:@ ice under Section 18 of ce Court vide impugned 00 lacs per acre for the ^13.36 lacs per acre for their -Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal £.nd Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave be

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement''of the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate ofRupees Fiftylacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillag4Pochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate ofRupeesThirtyIscs Der acre by relyingupon ; the precedents in the shape of decisions i:i Executive Engineer, KarnatakaHousingBoard V5. Land AcquisitionOfficer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246;AnjaniMoluDessaj vs. StateofGoa andAm,, y

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. Staf.eofMaryana andAnr., en dismissed, compensation sought by

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) '/fhr Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 andAnr, V5. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3';467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(TJ) through LRs V5. The SpecialLandAci^uisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs.. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. i 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vi". State 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State ofPunjab S. Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. State bfMaharashtra,(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through'LRsand Ors vs. State of Haryana& Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(fc) Smt. Lndu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ofs, SpecialLand'Acquisition Officer& Anr vs. M 9ugh LRs. Vs. Special see 661; Ranvir Singh 'Jnion ofIndia & Anr., of Haryana & Ors., No. 4143/2003 tided as decided on 26.03.2010; K. Rafiq Saheb,. (2011) / SC-C 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand\ofs 'ils. ExecutiveEngineer, IA.Apr) No. :L19;j/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal lA.App. No. 7.9'I,/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur U\ Gujarat and Am., AIR 2001 SC 2A7:4\ Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175 UnionofIndia & Am., 2006 (89) DRJ 527(DB);Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; Ger.eralManager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbh Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaiand A. Risal Singh Ors. Vs. ai Jivanbkai Patel and nr F5. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011' SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) Dattatray Thirthkar ra. State of Maharashtr Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. C 176(2011) DLT 361; AV.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 SCC 745; Mahesh a, AIR 2009 SC 2238; %ion of India & Anr, itled as Surat Singh V5. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Am., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead)by LRs and Ors V5. Union oflm 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 Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the ve.ry outset, it i: was urged by Mi-.B.S.Maan,learnedarguingcounsel for the appellants that the location'andsituationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be fiist understood in order to appreciate itsi'potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over a periodof time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,'coYnsel for appellantsthat t Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway lin^ of Village Biijwasan passes throughthe land of VillageBharthal, di^ i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the dia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; 1 SCC 423; LA. APP. n of India, decided on ./'.pp. No. 1195/2008Si connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal i.A,App. No. :?9'1/20i0& conncctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan lA..",pp.No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur /iding it into two parts, IGI Aiiport, Nev/ Delhi and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat^Petroleum and a road 100 meteis wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarkaSub-Cit)' Pail-I and Pait-II again divides the agricultural land into two poitions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGP Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFami Houses arfe located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Sarna] out by Mr.S.K.Solanlcilearned counsel for the part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acc of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmqnl the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBaiiino kha. It was also pointed appellants that northern ;quired for the extension in the year 1980 for the year 1982 for Bharat Village Pochanpur were of Dwarka Phase-I and •li and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phasc-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the ales sizras/m.2cpto^-hig of Village Bhartlial,Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has' fa led to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light illegally treated the acquired land to be' ^ Notificationof 16^^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from, agri:ulmral to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireiknd ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notifica.tionof24'''October,1994.

¶9It. was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Roiit,learned counselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtvi/o:jNJotificationshave been -elying upon P. Rama hlightthat the boundaiy wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by lA.ApR. No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App,Mo. 2M/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-'V.App.No. lll/MlOS, connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur )f its location and has igricultural in spite of PaRG 9 of ,29 Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must 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 piat the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthat there is no buildingpotentiality. i

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the ir appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto 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 Ref3 there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settledlegal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessaivs. State ofGoa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale sxemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the lane which comes to ?57 lacs pel acre and since the sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore '^-e 'r ReferenceCourt upon the minimumrates/circle;rat marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerrone Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 2 lacs to ?62 lacs and exemplars cannot be srence Court, because iance placed by the is for deteiiTiiningthe ous.

¶11Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,leaniedcounselfor the appellant^o DO rates fixed by the Government and also c determined rates fixed by the Government for a plots mthe year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentiality of the acquired land, determination o i-A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. Mo. Z94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 1 the basis of the L& >n the basis of pre-llotment of alternate f its market value is vt sought on the strength of sale exemplars of VillageSamalkhaoralternativelyon the basilo developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulpIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds aj Ignores the achiowledgementon respondent about the Award No.26/2

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

7.7.2007) Village Pochanpur and the L& DO rates of the the basis of the Pre-the part of the 002-2003 dated course of the 19012 of 2006. appellant dated h) Does not accountfor the fact thai, dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe the areafor more than 15 years before under Section 5 of the LandAcquisitio issued. the Public Notice rates of land in the Notification n Act, 1894 was c)•Paluing the land on the basis .

11.9.2001issuedby the Governmentiof TerritoryofDelhi is notin accordance down by variousdecisionsincludingin recent decisions of the Hon'ble 'Supreme Court Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. he letter dated National Capital vith the law laid one of the more d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors established,law has to be consideredbefo the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds W/l /y» ^ ^-7 _ y • -r in which as per ore ascertaining pv-oducedbefore the trial Courtwherea^ establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land as per the laM' AcquimonOfficer, Civil Apeal No.54. Lion ble Supreme Court has specificg.ll) '5 of 2007. The held that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnoi be disregardedin lA.App. iMo, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal i-A.Aop.No, /94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan i/-.App,No. l:U/2010a connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur case the average sale price is lower. Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 26.10(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that !^he highest of the exemplars and not by averagingofdifferent types of sales transactions should be] considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupona certanland. Further in Anjana f Relied upon judgment dated 3 3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject h indicate that the er than 15 lac per ock B in violation e Supreme Court Haryana 2010(1) pugned judgment landwhile ignoringthe materialwjhic marketvalue ofthe'landis much high acre in Block A andXl3,36,000 in.Bl of the law laid down by the Hon'bl including in Subh Ram vs. State of see 444. As a consequence, thefrr^.,^,,^^ refused to return an actualfindirig on the issue No.l framed on 27.2.2007. •• g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturallend although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool' Siras\ a) changet;!and these areas ceased to be 7d Bharthal was agricultural and came now under the urban boundariesofDelhi State. The masterplan and Notifications!:oj land use change show that in futv Governmentfor re land can be subjected to residential, comm.ercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinent-to appellantleadevidencein respectofth\ of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f; I.l virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the munxipal Counsellor was electedfrom, there. No Panch^ayc.telections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that, the deveiopm.entin the area has a directeffect on the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also W.App. Mo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App.Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App, IMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 'i' mention that the 74^ amendment

6.1993 IX A, by auctionedsimilarlysituatedland as . at the rate,of about ^2.6 lakh and c saidlandis M'hollyunderdevelopedIan f ooim^ercial blocks Dncluded that the d j) The valuationofthe subjectland ev pre-determinedauction rates set Hjy for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthe pos'sib the use ofthe landalthough the land development purposes of DM>arka reiteratedthat the land use of Village Bharthal was changed and these are agriculturaland came now under the ' ofDelhi State. en lower than the kespondent No. 2 dit}^ of change of was acquired, for Phase II It is Dhool Siras and as ceased to be rhan boundaries I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24 10 1994 although they clearly establish' the commercial ^''''Sunthala v. Tahsildar {LA) (^010) 3 see 661 It was held that th^

(La), (2010)3see 661 it Mm heldthai which land is acquired is a releva^it u reieyam factor. While P'°P^'-'yAuired the fact whether the land has Qnt huiUi^rr A-1,. . . o ,.,ic prupeny ac whetherthe landhasgot buildingpotent for buildingpurposes in immediate or needs to be considered. m) The presence ofa number of building a.nmjivo/l ^ . - ^ thepurposefor ' factor. While iality to be used in near future y on the lands acquired and the said land being: 'oL^iJ/by buiidmss are to

7.. s ^ • , - uiiing;;.oo~ buildings are to be treatedas houk si M'ere acquiredfor purpose ofputting ^hause litt^considered as house site the adjoininglands have the potentialof beingputin betteruseas housesitesiA thenearf^rj

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA App No 347/2009,the factualdetailshave been providedjithaprayerthat t.V annpllflntc .f-u;., ' ' ites. The lands up residential considered as appellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with fte otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplct^entingthe aforesaidarguntents.dVancedon behalfofthe appellants,,t was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof ••AAip L mSio^ AppealsofVillageBijwasan pp. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur co-appellants of the m urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDaUa'myTtiiHhkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238;KapilMehra(MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011) 3LT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of determinethe market value of the acquired la instancesreliedupon b)^ the appellantsare compt been relied upon by the Reference Court to as: value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhanbei reflectmgjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-otyectionsfiledby thfcRespondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51~Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certifiedcopy of the Sale Deed is an 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 a fancy ofthe purchaserand other factorsnamely, property,proximityto the villageetc. are also rec and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respond market value of the acquiredlands have been ill Refeience Comi;and whileplacingrelianceupont w. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DR.1 227, Satpal India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Vmo ;he area are relevant to ids and infact the sale -rable and ought to have iess the correct market nent of compensation tid element of special lature, situation of the uired to be considered 5nts disclosing con'ect sgally rejected by the le decisions in Jai Lai & Ors vs. Union of t of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 see 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008:titleJas SrnhilKumarvs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urg mprice in a shortperiodcannotbe taken to be jjea :d that sharp increase istic until reasons for such sharp increaseare explainedby producingin evidence the seller L/W^pp. No. 1135/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal U.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. NO. in/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur and the purchaseras no prudentperson having loiowledge of the usual prevalenttrendinthe marketwouldpay sucb^ahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, B appellants, but for special consideration. Thu behalf of the cross-objector that adoption Determined Rates cannot be countenanced tn 'eas, relied upon by the 3, it Avas contended on of L& DO rates/Pre view of the decision of Apex Court in Lcil Chand (supra) which';has been followed by a r (supra) and Raj Singh coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushil Kama (supra). i

¶16So far as potentiality of the land, is com Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for :erned, it was urged by the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factonsdinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice of the agriculturalIand by the Government as on 1'' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per amium, market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court, as in appreciation@ 10% per annum has been gr|nted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrpm the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectc judgment deserves to be modified deleting tt ReferenceCourt^vhiletakinginto consideration per annum and the same deservesto be broiigh appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereb objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closepemsalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the-decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe true marketvalue of the comparablelandis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto av/iHing LA.App. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal U.Aop, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochatipyr Panels fZf has been erroneously Sushil Kumar (supra) r and so, the impugned e enhancement by the :he appreciation@ 12?/o t in line while granting Y allowing the cross-seller and tlie best evidence is the comparablesale instances. While dealingwith the questionofpotentialvalue,oi the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dms vs. State ofHaryam& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords

¶18"(i) the situationofthe acquiredland . the town or village which had bee because of its commercial, indusi religiousorany otherkindofimpo ofits explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredland buildings, be they residenticil, industrial,as the casemay be;

(iii) possibility!ofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beputyp on thatland; 1'

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose; vz,is-a-visthe city or n growing in size trial, educational, stance or because

(v) existence, of highways, public:'rc buildingplots or developedresiclen 4-1^ ^ -m .J ' ?-/ - forputting up the commercial or ads; layouts of ial extensions in - —ji the vicinityor closeproximityofike acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions ht^nlih .... ^7

7.7 . , health care centres, or the like in areas of the acquired land whic,. u^uuma. availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and the surrounding' h may become

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland Usej eing in demandfor buildiyg purposes to specify a few. " The potentialit}^oflandfor the purposeqfd:velopment as also for buildingpurposesdependsupon alarge numberoffactors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to beai^>in AApp. No. I,t9y2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal A.mpp. r-Jo. P.'MAffllO&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i.A.,.pp No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur .mind the purpose for which the lands were sought to be acquired events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash(supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevant ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been but also the subsequent factors for detemiination held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsof smallpieces of land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be agroundto when exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwerenot

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby'the LandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. M.K. kafi

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfromt on behalfof the appellantsis that where'thbre either in location, situation or potentiality6f smiilarlysituatedhaving similar advantage availableto them even as regards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing the compensationonthe groundof distancebetween andthe acquiredland.

¶20It is a well establishedpropositionof law that the bui'den of piovingthe true marketvalue of the acquiredlaid is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for apariicularpurpose. But, it ,s equally true that the burden of proving inadeqitiacyof compensation awarded i,s on the claimant.For this proposition,the decisionof the discardthem especially available. Apex Court in Special qSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC lie decisionsreliedupon is no basic difference he villages, which are similarly situated lands Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be refer:

¶21Apex Courtin Fa/Ajamma/(Supra),wliile that tlie acquired land was situated in close -/icinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc.,l,adheld that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent .observationsmade by the Apex Court in Anjani deseiveattention,v/hichare as under:- "ed to with advantage, taking note of the fact Molii Dessai (Supra) lA..App No. 3195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. No. ;94/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillageQljwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur "The legal position is that even whire exemplars Mnth reference to similar I there are several mds, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however' there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in ,a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, 'as market price. But where the values disci 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. " representing the ised in respect of

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of th clinching obser\^ations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Fatil follows:- (Supra), which are as

¶23"It is well settled that genuine and transactions in respect of the land under its absence the bona fide sale transaction point of acquisition of the lands neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utilit)' 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. " Principles to determine the market value bona fide sale acquisition or in yproximate to the situated in the of the acquired lands as il Gas Corporation Ltd. reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Nature

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices idepends on four factors - situation of the land, natur'e of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityofland/cjr developmentin the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinit)f, increase in prices would be sIom', steady and gradual,Mnthoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. i.A.A|jp,No. J193/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthai l-A.App. Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan W.App. ,^lo. IJ1/2010 & connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu'' remote rural areas where there, was On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepockets 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. Onjhe other extrem.e, in developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal 10 chance of any rate of 1%) or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands rpa areas and increasesin market valuehf areas. Therefore if the increase in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to urban/semi-urban lands in the rural market value in 15%) per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% tc This rule of thumb refers to the gen&ral trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of evidence relating to increase in pric/zs. special reasons for applying a higher ra any specific evidence relating to 'the a prices, then the increaseto be applied the same.

7.5% per annum. clear and specific Where there are te of increase, or ctual increase in Duld depend upon Normally,recourseis taken to the mode hfdeterminingthe marketvalue by providingappropriateescalationover the provedmarketvalue ofnearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidence,ofany contemporaneousso le transactions or acquisitionsofcomparablelands in thenughbourhood. The said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the s\bject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour \ofiveyears. Beyond that it. may be unsafe, even ifit relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardij the gap is only a feM> years, may become unsafe and''unreliablestandard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market-valueof a land acquired in. 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or i.A.App.No. 11S5/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan iA.App. iMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

¶24I acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the mte' of annual increasemay itselfundergodrastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaiyingperiod, prices or sudden spurts inprices affecting-ofincrease." ofstagnation in 'he very standard This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtinHaiyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative'sales methods..Whatwas saidbythe (Supra) is as under:- "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or•lar ds with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor th say for forming of a residential layoi Apex Court in HSIDC e same purpose, It, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referencetoprevious status or situation sh •and a uniform,rate ofcompensationsh&ula alllandsacquiredunderthe samenotificati ould be avoided ' be awarded for on. "

¶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/ie}<emplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pocharipu] Deeds vide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e., Radha had purchased the agriculturalland in Village whichvariedfrom X52 lacs to ^62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-lM are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Rt Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandineas Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of (he landmthe villagesin questionis the mootquestionv/hichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds L^.App.No 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan lA.App. No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur •, i.e., the seven Sale SwamiSatsang, Beas PochEinpur at a price o Ex.PW-1/10) which adha Swami Satsang, iring 18 Bighas and 6 LA.App

1./*.App, '-A.App. (bx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetliatltspiice varies from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW the same marketprice.It was dependentupon th the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the each parcel of land of these sale exemplars question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exe;mplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for tiie acquiredlands in question. The special need of tlie purchaserof these agrici^lturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex brought out as the purchaserA^endeeof thes| ag,-iculturalland has not been got exaniinedby tire appellants.Had Hie purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaidsale exemplars been got examined,then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto,pa^ suchahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore thanl 3'j: exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA.iApp. Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 23;8.2011 and in LA, App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on i9.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sal Mamuipui-was discardedwhile holdingthat the s as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. ^ 27-. In the instantmatters,though the land use was changedmuch priorto theiracquisition,buj it that the acquiredlandswere beingusedfor agrifeul acquisition.Thus, it becoinesevidentthat the icq developed lands. No pradent person having Itno entire land of the sale 1/10) did not command e nature and situation of advantages attached to with acquired land in Bighas of. land at an Deed executed on 25"' No. 266/2008 titled as exemplar of Village ame cannot be treated of the acquired lands has come in evidence ;ural purpose till their uired lands were not ^vledge of prevailing No. a9i/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal in I connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan 1^-0. ia/;.oio&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 1 j Pnge 21 of 29 marketprice of the land in questionwould'pjiys and until such purchaseis meant for specialcon consideredopinion of this Court the sale' exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been lightly discarded by the Reference Court. f

¶28So far as the sale exemplarof Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon b}'' the appellants is concerned, disclc ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed c needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11)was situated on the National Highway - 8 and', because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11)vendorhadsoldnot onlythe landbutthe structurethereon includingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,lane, by-lane,etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar uch a high price unless ideration and so, in the sing exorbitant price of f 27"^ January,2000, it f • m cannot be treated as a representativeprice for question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosing"rea situatedlands in-the vicinity,now it is required the acquired lands in listic price of similarly to be considered as to whetheradoptionof L& DO circularrates for tl|e developedlands and Pre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots|l3y adopted to determine the true market value' of question. ' •

¶30Parametersgoverningfixationof marketvalue ofacquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionrepohedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderatiadi Urban Development Authority}HyderabadandOrs., 1995 (2) SGC'305 are as under:- "12. However, in eitherof the said cases whetherit be the the DDA ought to be the acquired lands in determinationofthe marketvalueofthe,ac buildingpotentialit}^with referenceto the sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tl quired land with price fetched by le neighborhood l.A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

¶31or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplqtsin an undeveloped layout ofbuildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out^whatwill be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, lehedupon by any oftheparties,withreferenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section (V of the Act Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetched by the sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the •neighborhoodof the acquired lands ^beLmes available thpn M)lnn1 J •. , r- , ' then what could be done is tofind out the the acquiredland with reference to the , publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA A the actualuse to which it wasputandincreaseits vahie by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon theibalisofevidenceto be made available in that regard 4 small percentage value of the landfound out accordingto its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving inekasedvalue for such buddingpotentialityarises only].yvhen there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the Neighborhoodof ^^at there wL no immediate acgu^edZnd- ' «'he In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofrate ofland chargedby the.DDAafteracquiringthe agriculturallands,Slopingthe same,and market value of relevant date of ct, according to transfemngperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto re ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the adjommg undeveloped freehold lands. Following Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench ofthis CoirtlJaiSingh (Supra)' and SushU Kumar (Supra) has excluded,the DDA rates nua the developedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of I.A-AP.,»..nVm"s"™ecttd,JUo,v5:S"";r Court in Lai Chand y upon the allotment :Tiarket value of the the dictum of Lai the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find t has rightlynot adoptedthe DDArates for allotm lat the Reference Court ent of developed land or the DDA's Pre-DetenninedRates fot altemsxeAllotmentsfor fixingthe marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsir

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whet methodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessing land in questionwhiletakinginto consideration the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland,othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argiied learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-question. ler progressive increase the market value of the ;he earlier acquisition of by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, •objector that even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per apnum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the Notification for development of Dwarka Pt Notificationfor developmentof DwarkaPhase-I the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the a and therefore, the enhancement granted by tl unjustified. period intervening the ase-I and the instant still the price fixed by foresaidescalatedprice le Reference Court is

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioniig the Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentc;\ the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 years be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring md beyond that it may land. Wliat may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew years, may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. I gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarllaPiiase-Iand Dwarica Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsand tlierefore,itwouldbe unsafeto adopttlie mode of detemiining the marlcet value by Uoviding appropriate LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur [n the instant case, the rj escalationoverthe marketvahieof the nearb;)^land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senioi' counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that .the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwan'anted as a cooidinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having Sushil Kumar (Supra), I fmd that 10% increa potentiality of the acquired land over and a determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been gr upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% pe the matter,the cross-Objectionsofthe responden' Derused the decision in !e on account of higher bove the market value mted and so, by relying by the Reference Court r annum. In this view of are dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whethervadpi minimumprice of the agriculturalland inDelhi, is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%i per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f T' April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deservesto not.

¶36Adoption of Govermnent's minimum ra1 ! pertaining to the Notificationin question has learnedcounsel for appellantsbecausethe;acqui be an agriculturalland by virtue of Nptificatior, declaring agriculturallands in these three ?villi urban. It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut that by :tselfis not sufficientto iption of Government's by the Reference Court LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan iV\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur be further increased or es of agricultural land been assailed by the red land had ceased to of 24^'' October, 1994 ages in question to be /)' ! IA.App. LA.App. LA.App. presume that the acquired lands had gainec^ consideredas developedlands. The evidenceltd is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aboundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale ebiei Satsang,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appkk ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.'

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence issuanceof Notificationunder Section 4 of^|;hi 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultu increasein pricedue to higherdemand,on accoi acquired lands upon change of their use -po potentiality for being nplars of Radha Swami nts disclose that the sale on record that till the Land Acquisition Act, •al use. Had there been mt of potentiality of the It the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laidtheirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpuran VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparable and so the contiguityof the acquired land ^wi Village Samalldia (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot he treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialbMopment Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded 1 the sale exemplar of with the acquired lands :h the sale instance of ion in the light of the le agricultural land in price due to higher for the lands acquired under the same Notificat minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor tl Delhi, which -generally factors in the rise ^of potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur $\ m would be expected to be the market growth a actuallygrown,Government'sminimumagrlcu to be reasonable basis for assessingthe mWket value of the acquired landsin JaiSingh(Supra)as well as inSushilKumar(Supra)andIfind no reasonto take adifferentviewthan the olie ^vhichhad beentakenby coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra). ' nd what the market had tural price has been held

¶38Ihis Court is of the consideredview thai the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal'and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Govermnent'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acc Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVille Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethat the po of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplai the Reference Court in uired lands in question, ge Bharthaland Village tential and the situation s is borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectefhigherpotentialityofthe Q r»rm 1-i-ia/-J ' • ... _ Airport, Indian Oil and fcicquiredlands being in close vicinityofthe fel BharatPetroleumDepots and of Railway liue fassing through Village Bhaithal and there being a 100 meters vide rojd starting from NH-8 from ShiviVIurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,Part:Iand Partfl, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there bein> Fann Houses in the vicinityofthe acquiredlands has somehowmisled the attentionof tlie ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionoftins Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlancesin question,certainly assumehiglierbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinpyofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseoverand abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the: Reference Court on account of the higlierbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the WAnn' M°' ^ ConnectedAppealsofVillageBharthal .^pp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l^.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page Z7 of 29 n I settled legal position aptly highlightedby the Namherwan Khan V5. Collector,(1975)1 SCC ^ "When once a conclusion is reached th Apext Court in Mirza 38, in these words at there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usi^dfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquired land had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentiality. "

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be veiy difficultto provide a definitevalue qua potential,and in view of t,he fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessirjgi'air compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichper with equivalenceby uniformly applying the G prices for the agriculturallands for computingt the acquired lands as there are no special featur lands differentlyand so, appellantsofVillageP par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon 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 acquiredian.dsdeterminedby these matters on account of the aforesaid providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acq the Reference Court in locational advantages uired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Villige Bharthaland Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith the appellantsofVillageBharthaland Village;.Bijwasan,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 villagesin questionis detennined@ Category 'A' land and @ ^14,69,600/-per bj lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land Acquisition^.ct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelayin filingthe appeal, for whichperiod of delayno intereston the enhar be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto pr ' allowed to the extent acquired lands of these 0,000/-per^iiighHfor the for the Category 'B' need compensation shall Dportionate costs.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid tenns with direction to the compensationamount,if any, depositedby eiihe General of this Court, to the concernedReferen be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb U.App. No. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur n r-T-£ \' Registry to remit the r side with the Registrar 'Q Court. Decree sheets \ fO ' 'I ^ W . IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSH^A Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Ve: Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodanafiAdvocate Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.Skautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates." Mr.N.S.NegiandMi-.H.S.Ralitela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar, A^lvpi Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mi.B.D. Sharma,Mr.S.K.So] Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates •ma, Mr.Jitin % versus UNIONOF INDIA& ANR. Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAd Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.Mohitr Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.Kaui Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Seth Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,M Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR ^ r > O R D F, W

12.01.2012 £M^PPl.No. 7fi2/M17 "rtin.i|-) This is an applicationfor seekingtypogrJphicalcorrectionin Orderof6"' January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 icate for anki and •••• Respondents vocate with ao Jadhav and nudi Kiran, , Ms. AmitaSingh, r.Kunal Sharma and forDDA. Pagel ofthe application.Advancecopy oftiiis applic givento remainingcounselfor the appellants'. The typographicaleiTor pointed out by decision of 6'^ January, 2012 is that in para aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensatioiias whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not counselappearingfor the appellants.According! allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto; 'pe: no: 40 ofLA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as ' correctionsbe carriedout forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applications itionhas alreadybeen JANUARY12,2012 pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 the respondent in the no: 40 of the is 'per bigha', disputed by learned , this application is bigha'inparagraph acre'. Necessary graph sessed iy per tknds disposedof c JUDGE Page 2

% + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 420/2010 RAJINDER SINGH Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Through: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61,64,65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, md Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR