Ved Prakash & Anr v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

30.05.2012 The impugnedjudgment of 20'^ October, 2009 declines the compensation to the appellant - Ved Prakash because the vakalatnama was not signed by him, though the Reference petition made by both the respondents herein was composite one. It also stands noted in paragraph no. 3 of the impugned judgment that both the appellants are co-owner of the subject land admeasuring 15 bighas i.e., first appellant has one-half share in it and whereas the second appellant has one-fourth share. The Apex Court in Vishwanath Pillai & Ors vs. The Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition No.IV & ors., JT 1991 (3) SC 575, has declared in no uncertain terms that the co-owners of the undivided property are owner of the entire acquired property but entitled to receive compensation on pro-rata basis. LA. App. No. 159/2012 Page 1 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. M The Apex Court decision in Vishwanath (supra) has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Tarifa & Ors, 98(2002) DLT 26. In the light of the legal position, as noted hereinabove, the impugned judgment declining the compensation to the appellant - Ved Prakash is set aside and it is held that appellant - Ved Prakash would be entitled to the compensation on pro-rata basis. Enhancement of compensation in this appeal is prayed for by both the appellants by relying upon the decision of this Court in LA. App. No. 1195/2008, Ranbir Sharma, vs. Union of India, rendered on 6**^ January,2012. Undisputedly, this matter stands covered by the decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (supra), therefore this appeal stands disposed of in terms of the decision in Ranbir Sharma (supra) with statutory benefits and proportionate costs. JIL GAUR) Judge MAY 30, 2012 pkb LA. App. No. 159/2012 Page2 % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (GRID-A) Reserved on: November 18. 201] Pronounced on: Januory 06, 2012 -i-LA.APP. 1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SI-IARAIA Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maari, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.vSmita Maan, Mi.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. ' Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. | Mr.RagliuvinderGodara,Advocate Mr.l^i.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Roilitiay,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. I I Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,]Vli-.Deepal{;Khosla.,Mr.SamitKhosla andMr.DhananjayMehlav^^at]Ad^^ocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate' Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. | Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filec^'by UOI) versus LTNION OF INDIA & ANR. Appellant Respondents Througli: Mr.SanJay Poddar, Senior Adyocate with Mr.SanJay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao .Vadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.KaurnudiKiran,Advocatesfor LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pav Sharma, Advocate foi-DDA LA.APP.412/2008 & CM.No.4096/2008 CCross-Obiections);LA.APP.452/2008; La.APP.453/2008;LA.AP,P.688/2008& CM.No.5p90/20i0(Cross-Objections); LA,APP.697/200S& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objectionsj; LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; L'V.App. Ml). liy5/2008 & connectedAppealsofVillage.Bharlhal 1^.App. Mo. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof VillageBijwaian IA.App. No. 111/7.030& connecled Appealsof Village Pochanpur /an Mathur, N4r.Kunal •Piigo 1 ol 2!) LA.APP.771./2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Obj , & CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.774/2008& , . .T?; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP.777/2008;LA.APP.782/2008& CM.No.9f0/2009 (Cross-Obiections)' CMN^Vlf/ynTQ^^ LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008& CMNo^l:)/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2p08 CM No 931/2009 Sn'; ^'^•APP;805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008& CM.NoJ795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No 806/2009 Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA APP 820/2008-T LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP833/2008-LA.APR844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APP.873/2008 & CM No 779/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections)- LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959 & CM.NO.519./2009 (Cross-Obje :ctions); LA.APP.772/2008, CM.No.709/2009 LA.APP.974/2008 '2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APR976/2008;LA.APP:977/2008rLA.iV79Sor& {Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA. APP.1029/20Q8& CM.No 17340/2008 LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No,17335/2008(Cross-Obiections)- LA.APP.1032/2008& CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections)-LA APP 1046/2008-LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objedtions)-LA APP 1050/2008 LA.APP.1053/'2008& CM.No.416/2009(Cross-Object CiM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1055/2 CM.NoJ52/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No 1557/201I Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Obiectionsi'- LA.APP,1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008& CM,No,54h/2009(CroS-SectiS-LA.APP.1073/2008;LA.APP.1074/2008& CM.No,623/'2009(Cross-Obiectio-")- LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Obections• & 0^4.1,0^7302/2008(Cross-Objecjtions);LA,APP,]086;2008 rr ^'^L^Io.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.IO87/2OO8& CM.No6] 9/900O LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008-CMNo38'^9/2009^C (Cross-Objectiks);LA,APP,l108/2008& CM N^ 828 900^ LA.APP.1109/20)8; LA.APP.l110/2008 & CMN03831 -009 LA.APP.l111/2(^08;LA.APP.l112/2008& rw ^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l113/2q08 & CM.No,3826/200Q iQoss-Objections);LA.APP.l115/2008; LA.APP.l116/9008" I AAPP !19 l/9nny• L/^.APP.l126/2008; LAAPP.1129/2008&. CM.N0.5S9 LA.APP.1130/2008;LA.APP.l131/2008& CM.No..566/2009 CW-oS^ : LA.APP.1133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008&CM.No.7442/2r9S-O^ rAAPp'llsStLaTpP (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1140/2008; rv ni ! LA.APP.1158/2008& CM.No 7774/9009 C-ioss-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008-LA AP^^ 97v p 1^'appCM.No.802/2009 (Cross-ObiectiUs)-LA APi^ l168/2008- : :::S=;tiSiKiS:S:;;!:! .S lA..'\r)p No. 1105/2008&connectedAppealof VillageBharthal ' i • i.A.,\c.p..No. ;.M/2010?.connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan • .,/>.App.Nc.l11/2010&connmeclAppealbof VillagePochanpur I Page 2 of 29, . :ons);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & 008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l190/2008; LA.APP 1191/2008-IAAPP 1iQo/onnQ LA.APR1193/2008;LA.APP.l194/2008;LA.APP119^8-[a'aP^ 97 200 LA.APP.1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objeitions)-' LA APP noL^nos LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP;^^-LA APP !2??200 CMN76957SfC^'^'"T'^f CMNo384L900??r ' LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.l241/2008& r AA (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,124B/2008-LA APP ]259/9nn8 LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.i27^/20C^' LaIJr 279 2008 T Appj?nnnn°^'^^•^^^•^281/2008; LA.APP.08^/2008;'LA.APP.1284/2008 T LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009-LA APP 39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 cfe CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections)- La'appsSo LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 Cross-ObecS LA AP^74/S LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.N0.95i3/2ri fCros^O LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.12^/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.197/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; , LA.APP.198/2009; r .I:.^-uuy• I^.APP.202/2009;LA.APP.203/2009;LA.APP.208/2Q09& (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009& CMNo97b/201] LA.APP.2]1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222)'2009-LA.APP.224/2009;LA.APP.227/2009;LA.APP.230/2O09& (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP?45/2009-LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009;' ^^^-^5(2009, LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APPJ 441/2009; LA.APP.190/2009; LA.APP.l99/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; .A.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.295/ LA.APP,447 LA.APP.480y2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.5,03/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP.l138/2b08; 2009; 2009; LA.APP.l177/2008;LA.APP.'1201/2008;LA.APP.23 /2(i09 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.223/2009, CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA. APP.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,48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L& 12 zuuu ^"^l^'sitionAc^t, 1894 &Award No.

26.2002-2003dated23.10.2002.VillageBharthal,De lii) 13417 dated 13.12.2000 % (GRID-B) Re^yed on: Deceinher 08, 2011 Pronoimc LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEVENDER KUA4AR Through; lJ^.App Mo. 1.1.55/2008Si connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010&ccnnectcdAppealsof VillageBijwasa'i LVApp, No. J;.l/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ^d on: January 06. 20/7 ... Appellant Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh versus IIOI & ANR LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. Advocates Mr.S.K.SoIanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Rouira>, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, .49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) 11/2010 53/2010 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 LA.APp. LA.API'. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanja}' Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.SoIanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeiklfiled by UOI Mr.Banlcey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth. Advocates forDDA. 49/2010 54/2010 59/2010 323/2010 277/2010 284/2010 89/2010 13/2010 48/2010 52/2010 57/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 725/2010 7j1/2010 764/2010 3^/2010 9^/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.A,PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & • 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

28./2002-2003,-VillageBijwasan, Delhi) ANID Vet, 1894 8c Award No. IA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 29.^/;'.010 connticted Appeals of Village Dijwasan IA.App. No..711/2010& connected Appeals of VillagePochanour % \5. (GRID-C) Resen 'ed on: Decemhp.r 18, 2011 PraMoimced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.S.K.SoIanlci and /•Qcatesfor appellant(in JNdr.B.D.Shanna, Mr.S.K.Rout,'Ad R-16, 20, 23 to26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,^i.dvocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.6.1, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYaclav Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through; Mi-.Sanjay Poddar Mi-.Sanjay Kumar .... Respondents r, Senior Advocate with " . •Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavIinSwain,Advocates for.UOI/LAC ; Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. 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. '. 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 536/201] LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 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 485/201 i 525/2011 554/2011 LA.AP? LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APp. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP^, LA,APP:

1.A.APP: 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 .261/2010 35/2010 '2/2010 3^7/2010 .433/2010 .5|7/2010 640/2010 741/2010 7^4/2010 6I/20n 117/2011 129/2011 52[1/2011 526/2011 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 1] 9/2011 429/2011 522/2011 53 5,'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. Uv.App. No. 1]95/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. A'o. 2.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •A.App. Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealscfVillagePochanpur Page 5 of ZD i' . (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,Vi & B/LA/13417 dated ^RequisitionAct, 1894 & ge Pochanpur, Delhi) ilia CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR . ORDER %

06.01.2012

¶1Since-the grounds on which enhancemsnt sought by the appellants in these bunch 'of thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresent at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch iof of the compensation is appeals are identical, appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417Hated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bhc Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this common

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planned develo|!)m //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuancfe c rthal, Bijwasan and order. 3nt of 'Dwarka Phase-f Notific.ation of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisi'ionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land i comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates includin i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@?q,82 lacs per acre for ••Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?l|2.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(Avithoutop soil). j

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketValue oftheiracquired LA.App. No. 1195/2U08&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l/-..App.No. ?,94/?,010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 1 one compact block, villages in question. in the aforesaid three iiree separate Awards, agricultural lands, appellants had sought refere Qce under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned Judgment had enlianced compensation @ fl5. appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelating to Village Pochanpurhave bejen dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs the precedents in the shape of decisions i Karnataka Housing Board Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246;Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Anr

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. Sta<teofHaryana and Anr.

(2010) 1 see 444;' Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 SCC 661; RanvirSingh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3^467; Chindha Fakira Patii

(TJ) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon,

201.1(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs 1:5, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; AvinashDhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through-'LRsand Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 tided as Smt. Indu Khorana V5. Gram Sabha & Ors, jdecided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand'AcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs, M\K. RafiqSaheh, (2011) / se e 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, lA.Apn No. :L19.S/2008!4 connected Appealsof Village Bharthal I.A.App. No. 7.9'i/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur DO lacs per acre for the ?13.36 lacs per acre for compensation sought by Der acre by relying upon 1 Executive Engineer, Union ofIndia &. Anr., of Haryana & Ors., Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001' SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation,

(2010) 11 SCC 175: Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527'(D:3); Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameskbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh I Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtr Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Fs. U 176(20]1) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007litled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority) & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) byLRs and Ors vs. Union oflni Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 1 No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs'. Unioi

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 tiie strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the -s^ery outset, it was urged by Mi-.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood m order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near fiiture alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat \ Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes throughthe land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside of the railwayline is the ux.App. No. 1195/2008 connectedAppealsofVillageBharVhal iA.App. No. 2'MI2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur a, AIR 2009 SC 2238; ^nion of India & Anr, dia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; 1 SCC 423; LA. APP. n of India, decided on IGI Airport, Nev/ Delhi Page a of 29 lA.ApD. 1A.App. L-\./\pp. and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 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 Eastern side, where developedFami Hiuses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Sama out by Mr.S.K.Solanld learned counsel for the Idia. It was also pointed appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Aiiport in the year 1971 and again establishingIndian Oil Depotsandthereafterin Petroleumand the lands of VillageBharthalInd also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmqn the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Pl;iase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/mdcpto.highlightthatthe boundaiy of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous. '

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan appellants that the Reference Court has fa potentialityof the acquired land in the light in the year 1980 for the year 1982 for Bharat Village Pochanpur were of Dwarka Phase-I and , learned counsel for the iled to appreciate the 3f its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be= agricultura] in spite of Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide wlilch villages in question was changed from agri land use of the three cultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireiknd ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificatipn

¶9It was argued with much vehemence-by counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtv/o : of24'*' October,1994. Mr.S.K.Roiit, learned \[otifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by felying upon P. Bnma Wo, 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal No. 29':/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan Wo. lll/MlO&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Rape 9 of 29 Redcli& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,ifydembad<& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired' land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area ove:: a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the lan^ to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mi\B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfromi ^"512 lacs to ?62 lacs and I merely because of the said variation, these sale thrown out as has been illegallydone by the Ref= there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per>se1tledlegal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu'Dessaivs'. State of Goa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale 3xemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the lane which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsreli^iupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore,!'re Reference Court upon the minimumrates/circle rat marketvalueofthe acquiredlandispatentlyerrbneous.

¶11Assessmentofmarket value ofthe acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantsoji the basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand poientialityof the acquired land, determinationojf its market value is l-A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.Aif)p. 29V2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& conncctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur exemplars cannot be srence Court, because iance placed by the js for deteiiTiiningthe sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis o developed lands in Dwarlca Phase-I or on DeterminedRates (PDRs) as referredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds aj "Ignores the aclmowledgement on ^he part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated Village Pochanpur and the L& DO rates of the the basis of the Pre-

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

7.7.2007) course of the 19012 of 2006. appellant dated b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe . the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section5 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. rates of land in c) Valuing the land on the basis of 'the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the Governmentof Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance down by variousdecisionsincludingin 1ecent decisions oj the Hon'ble Supreme Court Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. National Capital with the law laid one of the more in d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per esiaolished.law has to be considered,beforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.54'/^ Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldno, disregardedin lA.App. No. 1,195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal uVAop. Mo. Z94/2010g< connecledAppealsof VillageBijwasan i/.-App.No. l:U/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Special Land '5 of 2007. The case the averagesaleprice is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai State of Goa, 20.10(^13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held th^t the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging,of different types of sales transactions should be considered white adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certanland. I f Relied upon judgment dated 3\3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the marlzeivclue of the subject land while igiioringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalue of the land is much higherthan 15 lac per acre in BlockAand ^13,36,000in BlpckBin violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State"of Hary^ana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the inmugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No.l framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide hjQtificationofthe MunicipalCorpora land use of Village Dhool Siras ai changed and these areas ceased to be came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in futire land can ' be subjected to residential, comriiercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinentto mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74'^ amendment of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the land is situated, M^as deemeda municipalarea and the niun was electedfrom, there. No Panchayc held in the area tion of Delhi, the jd Bharthal was agricultural and 'cipal Counsellor t elections were h) Refused to apply the law laid down \in AIR Supreme Court 3467, RanvirSingh and Anr v^j Union of India and refusedto considerthefact that the developm.entin the area has a direct effecton the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also L^.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal l-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan tA.App. IMo, 1.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur auctioned similarly situated land as _ at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and c saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedUan oommercial blocks oncluded that the d. j) The valuationofthe subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by F^espondentNo 2 for similarly situated land. I k) Does not take into accountthe possib the use ofthe landalthough the land development purposes of Dwarka reiteratedthat the land use of Village Bharthalwas changedand these are^., ^^asea woe agncultwalandcame now under the Lban boundaries of Delhi State. •lity of change of was acquired for Phase II. It is Dhool Siras and as ceased to be I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.JO.2000ana ah lu iv94 "'^hough th<y clearly establish the commercial ^""Smthala V. Tahsildar whih ? I " P^'-Posefor and IS acquired is a rele'mnlfactor. While determiningvalue of the property'.,alguiredthe fact Xr to be used foi buildingpurposes in immediate or " needs to be considered. and 24.10.1994 m) The presence ofa number of buildings on the lands and the said land being oLupied by the ings are to be treatedas house sites. TJte lands hZe litfri ''"''"Sconsideredas house site, adjoininglands have the potentialof eingputin betteruseas housesitesin tlinearfuture.

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pa! and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual detailshave been providedWith aprayerthat tii» awellantsof tlris appeal be treatedat par with the!co-appellantsof th« otlierappealsin these bunchofappeals. Z i

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvajoedon behalfofthe appellants,,t was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Adyoiatethatthe effectof • i ^o. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i j Page13 of29 LA.App. IA.App. 1A App. in near future urbanizationoftiie lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Datta ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMe ^ray Thirthkar vs. State hra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Am, 176(201!)DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of deteiminethe market value of the acquired lai instancesreliedupon b)^ the appellantsare comp^xableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to; assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectmgjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the R Poddai,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthough Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy o admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence for determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connectedwitli the land in question apd element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand other factorsnamely, pioperty,proximityto the villageetc. are also fee and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respond market value of the acquired lands have been ill ReferenceCourtandwhileplacingrelianceupont m-. Vnion ofIndia, 2002 (62) DR,I 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Ann,

(2009) li SGC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titleo as SushilKumarvs. :he area are relevant to ids and infact the sale Jspondents,Mr. Sanjay as per Section 51-A of the Sale Deed is an lature, situation of the uired to be considered ;nts disclosing correct igally rejected by the le decisions in Jai Lai Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it v/as urgl in price in a shdrtperiodcannotbe taken to be rea SLich shaip increase are explainedby producingi id that sharp increase istic until reasons for n evidence the seller VApp. No. 113S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal U.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App.No.^l.U/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanptir and the purchaser as no prudent person having prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thu behalf of the cross-objector that adoption Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in Apex Court in Lai Chanel (supra) which' has been followed by a coordinateBench of this Court inSushilKumar (supra)amiRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is qbncerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanja}^ Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice of the agricultural,land by the Governmentas 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 granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectc judgment deserves to be modified deleting th ReferenceCourt while taking into consideration . 1 per annum and the same deser^^es to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissicns advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugned-judgment,the evidenceon Icnowledge of the usual 3, it was contended on of L& DO rates/Pre view of the decision of recordand the'decisionscited,what emergesis th of the comparableland is the pricepaid by wiilin W.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.ADp. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IW.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur has been erroneously Sushil Kumar (supra) r and so, the impugned e enhancement by the ;he appreciation@ 12% at the true market value purchaser to a v^^illing Page 15 of 29, seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words 'S. State of Haryana & "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or village which had. been growingin size because of its comniercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation; I I

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, industrial,as the case mav be; commercial or

(iii) possibility!ofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence, of highways, public reads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresiclenvialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions. /o / V ^ j . r w. t health care centres, or the like in areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

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

¶181he potentiality.ofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpuiposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear inimind the purpose for IVN.App, Mo. 1.19.V2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharlhal W.App. No. ;..W;!010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l-A.App Nu. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoclianpur the surrounding- ^ I which the lands were sought lo be acquired events to some extent. It has been so observe Avinash(supra).While reiteratingthe relevant of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been but also the subsequent d by the Apex Court in •actors for detemiination held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwere not available. i9. Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby-the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer&Am vs. M.K RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7SCC

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialit}^of similarlysituated having similar advantage;av ;lie villages, which are liable to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing the similarly situated lands compensation on the ground of distance between and the acquired land.

¶20It IS a well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of provingthe true market value ofthe acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for aparticujlarpurpose. But, it is equally tme that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto withadvantage.

¶21Apex CourtmValliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close Vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., l^ad held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was !'im .observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnianiMolu Dessai(Supra) deserve attention, which are as under; proper. The pertinent lA.App No. 3195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBhartlial lA.App. No. :-'.94/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.rjo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

¶23"It is well settled that genuine and transactions in respect of the land under "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars M>ith reference to similar lands, 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 representing the market price. But where the values disclbsed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it bayi. only lead to an inferencethatthey are with referenceto dissimilarlands 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 Patil follows (Supra), which are as bona fide sale acquisition or in its absence the bona fide 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 willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expedted to reflect the true value, as agreed betiveen reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. " Principles to determine the market valiie of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Naiural Gas Corporation Ltd,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices]depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surroundingarea, availabilityof land/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)'] increase in prices would be ^low, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. i.A.App.No. J195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l.A.App. Mo. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan. l.y\,App.'^lo. IJ1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu^ 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 extrem.e, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers,.the prices stagnated foryears or rose marginallyata nominal^rate of1%) or 2% per annum. There is thus a signific'ant 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% tc 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5% to^ 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence-ofclear 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 increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. Normally,recourseis taken to the mode hfdeterminingthe market value by providing appropriate?,escalation over the provedmarketvalue ofnearbylands in p^reviousyears (as evidencedby sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the's\ibject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it. may be unsafe, even if it relates io a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if few years, may become unsafe and un where the gap is larger. For example!fo the gap is only a 'reliable standard, determining the market•value of 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& connectedAppealsofVillageBijvva.san lA.App. IMo. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 19 nf 29 LA.App. lA.App, IA.App. acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have matiypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^ate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffectihg\he verystandard ofincrease. "

¶24This Courtis mindfolofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Hmyana I StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(EsipC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for. the acquired lands by adopting comparative'sales methods.What was saidby the (Supra) is as under:- i "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or landswith different situationaladvantages)ai-e acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatusor situationsl\ouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe samenotification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bij^asan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale,exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpu]-, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhdSwamiSatsangBeas Apex Court in HSIDC had purchased the agriculturalland in Villa^^e whichvariedfrom ^52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre;

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds(Ex.PW-l''4 LEx.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas mrespectofthe compactblockoflandmeasiring18 Bighasand 6 BiswassituatedmVillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhich is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds No 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan No. ill/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pochanpur at a price m (bx.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its pr 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 paicel of land of these sale exemplars ice varies from ?52 lacs entire land of the sale '-I/10) did not command e nature and situation of advantages attached to with acquired land in question,is laclang.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired special need of the purchaser of these agricu Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.;^W-l/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, tl: elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pa these lands, llie special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swaini Satsang, Beas ^vho had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Unio^t India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sal Mainuipurwas discardedwhileholdingthat the same camiotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters, thoiiglithe land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has comein evidence thatthe acquiredlandswere being usedfor agrioal[uralpurposetill tlieir acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the accuiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having loioivledgeof prevailmg I.A.App.Mo. MOS/SOOS&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal .App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan I tA.App.No. in./2010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 21 of 2S lands in question. The Itural lands in Village .en it could have been Ysuch a high price for exemplar of Village lA.App LA.App l^.App, market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special con considered opinion of this Court the sale exen (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rigl^tly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village S relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclc ?1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Decid 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 (bx.PW-1/11)vendorhad soldnot onlythe land but the structurethereon includingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,latie, by-lane,etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar ideration and so, in the iplars, i.e., Sale Deeds amalldia (Ex.PW-1/11), sing exorbitant price of f 27"' January,2000, it cannot be treated as a representativeprice for question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice ofsimilarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whetheradoptionofL& DO circularrates for the developedlands and the acquired lands in Pre-DetenninedRates for the alternateplots by . I adopted to determine the true market value'"of] the acquired lands in question. - i

¶30Paiametersgoverningfixationofmarket\ alue of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad\ Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC'305 are as under:- "12. However, in eitherof the said cases Mether it be the determinationofthe marketvalueoftheacquiredlandwith buildingpotentiality?Mnth referenceto the pricefetchedby saleofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tiie neighborhood No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur the DDA ought to be or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe /~1 /~t 1 It ty^ --7 - •.^ 7_ 7_ • 7 7 • . T . ' ' with reference to n an undeveloped hood, it becomes will be the price uj Lnti / acquiredland with buildingpotentiality thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplks layout of buildingplots in the neighbor inevitablefor the Court tofind out^what wm oe me price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsdidon the date ofthe publicationofthe preliminarynotificatiqnunder Section

(1) ofthe Act. Further,whereno evidenc'eofpricefetched by the^ sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuiMingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands be\omes m,ailable then vjhnt ? , .7 , _ '

¶31then what could be done is tofind out the the acquiredland with reference to the publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA uccorainglo he actualuse to which it wasput and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made avaUable in that regard Aslnall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed I/5tJa ofthemarket value of the landfound out according. its actudl user since resort to the method ofgiving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentiality^arises only when there is\o evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there^.w<^no immediate acqu'^edTand-- >(formedin the In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofJte ofland Aat-gedby the DDA afteracquiringtlieagriculturallands,deilopingthe same, and tmsferringperpetualleaseholdrights, the ApexICourt in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto.rely upon the allotment ratos/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjonring undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai a l/% yv M /'O \ market value of "relevant date of ct, according to Chand (Supra),a coordinateBench of this Court and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rate! qlTe developedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueof lAApp, No, 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal X"'::• SSITT. PP NO. 113/2010&connected/appealsofVillagePochanpur in Jai Singh (Supra) the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-DetenninedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the I marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetiierprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the land in questionwhiletakinginto consideration';he earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mi-.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/crQSs-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the Notification for development of Dwarka Ph; Notificationfor developmentof DwarkaPhase-L the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the £ and therefore, the enhancement granted by tl unjustified. period intervening the lase-I and the instant still the price fixed by foresaidescalatedprice le Reference Court is

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good ir the Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof tie market value of the i.. acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 years be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring leliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew ye£ and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. view of the dictum of T,nd beyondthat it may land. What may be a rs, may become unsafe n the instant case, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarl^aPhase-Iand Dwarka T-^l_ _ -TT • ^ \ Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,itwdulc mode of detemiining the mai'ket value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur be unsafeto adoptthe escalationoverthemarketvalueofthenearbyland ofthepreviousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that -th^ Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, wMch is unwan-anted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kum escalation @ 10% per annum.' After having SushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and a^ove the market value I determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been grmtedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @12%) per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% p^- annum.In this viewof the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed. ar (Supra), has granted Derused the decision in j5. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, IS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe mark(5t value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturallandby the Governmentw.e.f I'jA^ril,2000 till the date of by the Reference Court Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to not.

¶36Adoption of Goverriment's minimum ra pertaining to the Notificationin question has learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificatior.of 24^'' October, 1994 declaring, agriculturallands in these three villLges in question to be be farther increased or :es of agricultural land been assailed by the urban. It is true that vide aforesaidNotificationo use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthat by LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App.Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBIjwasan ly^.App.No. in/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pthe year 1994 the land •tself is not sufficient to presume that the acquired lands had gainec. potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and a'oundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Syvami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appelhnts disclosethatthe sale ofthe said lands was for agriculturalpuipose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricuitu uicreasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year. 1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other s in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely u 'al use. Had there been ale instances in the area pon the sale of the land in VillagePochanpurto a rehgiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)without le establishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe s Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpuram VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparable and so the contiguityof the acquired land wi ading any evidence to ale exemplars of Radha 1 the sale exemplar of with the acquired lands ;h the sale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be sufficient ing upon the aforesaid referred dictum of the ground to grant higher compensationwhile rely sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial De\ (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which -generally factors in the risefof price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there ii agap between what 1A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur would be expectedto be the market growth a actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagricu: to be reasonable basis for assessingthe mark lands in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushil 1 no reason to take a different view than the one ^ coordinate Bench of this Court in the afdies (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).

¶38Ihis Court is ofthe consideredview thai the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertammg to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Govermnent'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe'acci Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVilla,; Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethat the pel of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplar: evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectoft: acqun-edlands being in close vicinityofthe IGI Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passingthrough Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe Farm Houses in the led the attention of the acquired lands in two portions, and there b|in vicmityof the acquiredlands has somehowmis nd what the market had tural price has been held et value of the acquired iumar (Supra) and I find A^hich had been taken by aid cases of Jai uired lands in question, geBharthaland Village tential and the situation s is borne out from the igherpotentialityof the Airport, Indian Oil and ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aforesaidiocationaiadvantages,the acquiredlanJsin question,certainly assumehiglierbuiidingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseoverand abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on accountof the higherbuildingpotentialityin the, acquiredlands is the W.APP. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal W.APP. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. m/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acqiiiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its niarket value takinginto accountthe increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentiality. "

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

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awardhlg10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthaland Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsbfVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof lA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur the appellants of Village Pochanpur are alsc indicated above. Thus, the market value of the three villages in question is determined @ Catcgoiy 'A' land and @ ^14,69,600/- per ;bi lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the statutorybenefits as per the Land AcquisitionA the judgment reported in Sunder V5. UOI 2 granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is ad|elayin filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno iiitereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledtoproportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-oTpjectionsare disposedof allowed to the extent acquired lands of these 0,000/-per^tiigl^^-the for the Category 'B' -v|\ compensation awarded, .ct, 1894 as explained in 301 (93) DLT 569 are in the aforesaid tenns with direction to the compensationamount,if any, depositedby eithe General of this Court, to the concerned Referen be accordingly prepared. Registry to remit the r side with the Registrar :e Court. Decree sheets January 06, 2012 pkb LA.App. No, 1195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal IV\.App. |\lo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePociianpur f •••jf ; P m + tl' inr % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA NEW DELHI Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakasli, •ma, Mr.Jitin Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S. Ve: Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate A^.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mi-.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefor Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Soi Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates Appellant anki and versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: Mi-.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAc Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.Mohit Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.Kau] Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma,Mr.S.K.S Mi'.BanlceyBihariSharma,M Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR order'

12.01o2012 thi Respondents vocate with ao Jadhav and nudi Kiran, Ms. Amita Singh, r.Kunal Sharma and for DDA. CJlABELN(k752/2012 ffoi- ! This is an applicationfor seelcingtypogra[ Orderof6"' Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedtlie notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 phical correction in Pagel ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis apphcitionhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicaleiTor pointed out by decision of 6^^ January, 2012 is that in para the respondent in the graph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'plrbigha'inpar-agi-aph no, 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read :|s 'per acre'. Necessary collectionsbe carriedout forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY12,2012 pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 disputed by learned JUDGE Page 2

$--2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 159/2012 VED PRAKASH & ANR Appellants Through: Mr.S.K.RoutandMs.Sul^da Dhamija, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates Mr.Vaibhav Mirg, Advocate for Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for respondent - DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR