Union of India & Anr v. Zile Singh & Ors

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 jsSSgaurT JUDGE THE HIGH COURT OF DFXHI Al^ NEW DEI Ef.sei'l^d.QJlLNoWJRb('ILi§!.2PJ_L tLQMU^^'.^4.Mli.'I^LURQOLQ^.2.QI2^ (GRID-A) LA.APP.] 195/2008 (Vli.LAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA Appellant 'Ihrough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.Ami!Maan, Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Toraar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. iVIr.RaghuvinderGodara, Advocate A Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate " Mr.S.K.RoutandMr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.PankaJ Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.lLS.Rautela,(Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOl) i versus LNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through; Mr.SanJayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak. Mr.Mohitrao .iadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kauinudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AJayVerma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA LA.APP.412/2008 & CIVl.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.452/2008; LA.APP.453/2008; LA.APP.688./2008 & Crvj.No.5990/2010 (Cross-Objections); l.A.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.70i/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.AP]\768/2008; LA.APP.770,/2008; lA.App. No. 119:j/2008 & connccted Appeals of Villagt;Bharthal I'i.-App. No. ?,94/?,0:0 & connectfld Appeals of Village BIjwasan IA.App No. 1.11/20.10& conncclfidAppealsofVillagePochaiipur Page1 of29 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Crois-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; l.A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; 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.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Obje.ctions); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA. APP.993/2008;LA. APP. 1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) • I.A.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-Objections) LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008 LA.APP.1051/2008& CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008, l.A.APP.1053/2008& CM.No.416/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008& CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP:1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008&. CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA-APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections) LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.107.i/2008;LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.6]9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.1103/2008 &. CM.No.441/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1111/2008;LA.APP.1112/2008& • CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.1113/2008&CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l115/2008; LA.APP.1116/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008 LA.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.lljj/2008; LA.APP.l135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections) r.A.APP.l137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l140/2008, LA.APP.l156/2008;LA.APP.l157/2008;LA.APP.l158/2008& CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.1166/2008 LA.APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008 LA.APP.l170/2008; LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.l173/2008 LA.APP.1175/2008;LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.l179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008 LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.1185/2008; LA.APP.l186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 lA.App. No. T19.V?.008& connnctcdAppealsofVillage Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/201.0& connectcdAppoaLsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App, No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsof Village!Pochanpur Ppgp2of 29 / % (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008 LA.APP.l 193/2008; LA.APP.l 194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP.l 197/2008 LA.APP.l198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP.1223/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.r38/2009 LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP.144/2009 LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; LA.APP.190/2009 LA.APP.197/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APP.199/2009, ........ LA.APP.202/2009;LA.APP.203/2009;LA.APP.208/2009& CM No 7727/7o"o9 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009& CM.No.970/2011 (Cross-Objections)

1.A.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA APP 223/2009 l^.APP.224/2009;LA.APP.227/2009;LA.APP.230/2009& CM.No 7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA APP 246/2009 •LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA APP 305/2009 LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP458/2009 LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP481/2009 ^'^•APP-490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP493/2009 AAPP 507/?nn? LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.506/2009 LA.AlP.507/2009, LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009:LA APP 510/2009 LA,APP.5!1/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LAAPP.'s^S^ LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP.45/20]0; LA APP 48/2010 tAPPMv™ APP.13/2011; LA.APP.l138/2008; LA.APP.l176/2008 LA.Al1.11 /7/2008;LA.APP.1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/134I7dated 13.12.2000 Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002.,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) LA.APP.l 39/2009 LA.APP.l 45/2009 LA.APP.l 91/2009 LA. APP.201/2009 Reserved on: Decemher 08. 20IJ Pronounced on: January 06. 2017. ' LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) Dl-VENDERKUMAR 1hrotigh: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. No. 11135/2008&connectndAppealsof VillageBharlhal I.A.App. IMo. 294/2010&connyctcdAppealsof VillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/20.10&conncctedAppealsof VillagePochanpur '0' i i Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.fv. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus IJOl & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOl. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharraa, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA. AFP. 11/2010 I.A.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 !",A.APP. 56/2010 , LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 I.A.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 l,A.y\PP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 r..A.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 i.A.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 [A.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010

1..A.APP. 405/2010 I.A.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 I.A.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP.75/2010& C.M.No.964/2011(Q LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.AP^ 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA^P.277/2010 LA.APP.281/2010 jX.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP.285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & •oss-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND lA.App. No. 1.195/2008& connfictodAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. zg^/Mloa connnctodAppealsofVillage Bijwasan 1A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pago 4 of 29 V i (GFaD-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 ]A.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants 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, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal -Shanna and Mr.Somer K.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 536/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 794/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan 1A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 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. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/20J0 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 V-i (Relating to. Notification No. F.l()(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

06.01.2012 ]. Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Notification No.F.10(30)96~L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

¶2Acquisition process for planned development of 'Dwarka Phase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13''^ December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e.. Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award No.30/2002.-2003granting compensation @ ?13.82 lacs per acre for' Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @ ?12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentof marketvalue of their acquired. LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillaf^e Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/?.010& connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App.l\lo. 1.13/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 6of29 i agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt vide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@^15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquired land in Block 'A' and @^13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals,furtherenhancementof compensationsoughtby the appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate ofRupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board V5. 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. State ofHaryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SeALE 41; Chakas fs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SeALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) II see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 See 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana V5. Gram Sahha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr M.K. Raflq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsihhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, lA.App. No. n9;i/?.008 & connnctfid Appeals of Village Bharthal lA.App, No. ?.!)4/Z010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA.App. IMo. ,111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur V Gujarat and Am\, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation,

(2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs, Union ofIndia & Am\, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and Am vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority,

(2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead)byLRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

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 very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in 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 future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land ofVillage Bharthal,dividing it into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi l7\.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppnalsofVillageBharthal IA.App. No. 29'1/2Q10& connectedAppealso1 VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page8of 29 V t i/ 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 developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part ofthe land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Aiiport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBhartha]and VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/m-eipto highlightthatthe boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally tieated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24^'^ October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.App. No. l,195/?.008&connnctedAppealsof VillageBharthal iAAnn Mr* ')Q/l/Tnini) • lA.App. No. l,19.'')/7.008&connnctedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp. No. 294/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur i Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad <§; Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass 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 over 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 land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely bccausc of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any spccial advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMain Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnn,.(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageof sale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourt upon the minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueof the acquiredland ispatentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learned counsel for the appellantson the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. P.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur p loof29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant-Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgment on the following grounds a) ''Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated.

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

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

11.9.2001 issued by the Government ofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid doMna by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to beconsideredbeforeascertaining the value ofthe land under acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Ilon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin iy\.App,No. 1195/2008& conncctGdAppoalsofVillage Bharthal LA,App. No. 294/2010 & connectGdAppealsof Village liijwasan LA.App. No. 111/20.10&connocLedAppealsofVillagePochanpur n gf29 t t case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensationupon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the marketvalue ofthe land is much higherthan 15 lacper acre in Block A and \13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'hle Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.l framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changedand. these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. The masterplan and. Notifcations of Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissibleuses. It is also pertinentto mentionthat the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74^''amendment ofthe 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, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was electedfrom there. No Panchayatelections 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 developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also l-A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I^A.App. IMo, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage BIjwasan LA.App. IMo. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthe possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land althoughthe land was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiteratedthat the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. ^ I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthe saidland In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010)3see 661 it was heldthatthepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto he used jor buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportionofthe landis beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof beingputin betteruse as housesitesin the nearfuture." In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. the factual detailshave been providedwith aprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof lAApp, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharth.l lAApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBiiwasan •V\.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur t

¶13t urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh DattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value oJ-the acquired lands. I'hus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence ior determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat sharpincrease in piice in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntil reasonsfor such shai-p increase are explained by producingin evidencethe seller LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal IA.App. No. 7.91/2010&connoctodAppeaLsof VillageBijwasan i-A.App.No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur t V••-fv and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay such a higherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determincd Rates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBench ofthis Court in SushilKumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mi.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has already been factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1" April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per amium, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Smhil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scope for fortherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12%) per annum and the same deservesto be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ol the comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling W.App. No. 1195/2008&connoctedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No, 294/2010&conncctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur •-{Vtx seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:-

(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, /eligiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

(ii) the^suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the A buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as the casemay be:

(ill) possibility.ofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto heputup on thatland; absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose; existence of highways, public,roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions • health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which mav become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itselj being in demand for building purposes to specifyafew. " ^ ,

¶18The potentialityofland for tlie purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsuponalarge numberof faetors.for the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for l AppealsofVillageBharthal A.App. No. 2J4/7.010&conncctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. Mo, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

(iv) (^) i ^4 • which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the'Apex Court in Avinash(supra).While reiteratingthe relevantfactors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the exemplarsof small piecesof land relied upon b)' the appellantscouldnot be aground to discardthem especially when exemplarsoflargepiecesofland were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special landAcquisitionOfficer&Anr vs. M.K RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC

¶714Ihe legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom, the decisionsreliedupon A appellants is that where there is no basic difference iP either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarlysituated having similar advantage availableto them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of proving the true market value of the aequiredland is on the State who has aequired the agriculturalland for aparticularpurpose. But it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation ^ awarded .s on tire claimant. I.'or this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kimn Tmdon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage.

¶21ApexCourt,n ValUyamma!(Supra),whiletakingnoteofthefact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitution,,,hospitals,etc.,had held thatdeduction of 40«/. towards development charges was improper. The pertinent obseivationsmade by the Apex Coun in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserveattention,whichare as under:- k?- ^ VillageBharth.l I/ A ^ ^ connectedAppt^alsof Villagp[?ijwasan - App. Mo, l.l.,i/;.oio&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpttr "The legal position'is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can he taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-vahiation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to. "

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note of the clinching obsei"vations pertainingto determinationof fair market rate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor M'hich could be expectedto reflect the ti lie value, as agreed between reasonableprudentpersons acting in the normal marketconditionsare the real basis to determine the market value: " 2j. Piinciplesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as 1^ reiteratedby the Apex Court in OilandNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra),are as under:- s Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation ofthe land, nature ofdevelopmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area,, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectofdevelopmentin the vicinity increase in prices would be slow, steady and •gradual, witnoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. lA.Af p. No. 1195/?008&connpctfidAppealsof VillageBharthal W.App, iMo. 294/2010&connactodAppealsof VillageBijwasan ITX.App. No. in/2010& connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur •• ^ . , Page 18of29 t On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a nominalrate of !%> or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas woidd 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 adoptedin the absenceofclearand specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special^reasonsfor applyinga. higher rate ofincrease, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in pi ices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe market value by providingappropriateescalationover the provedmarketvalue ofnearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there IS no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonablysafe where the relled-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond that it may he unsafe, even ifit relates to a neighbouring land What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is onlya few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is 'larger. For example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or LA.App. No. 1195/2008&conn(!clGdAppealsof VillageBharthal ;.A.App. IMO. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan 1A.App. No. 1.1.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur t acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may-'havemanypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increase may itselfundergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrence ofvaryingperiods ofstagnation in pricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease. "

¶24'i^his Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haiyana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods. What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When different categories of lands (or lands with different situational advantages) are acquired far the same purpose, say for farming of a residential layout, courts have ^ sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation should he awarded for all lands acquired under the same notification. "

¶25IJndisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,\.q., Radha SwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectoi: the compactblock of land measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedm VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to be answered, Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds cA.App. No. 1195/2008& connecteclAppealsof VillageBharttuil i7\.App.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan IA.App. No.,a11/2010&cpnnuctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur! . " ; ', . Page20 of29 t t (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars - Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy, of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant pricc in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. y\pp. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh ra. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarofVillage Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuch priorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing ITV.App. No. 1,195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageHhartha! l.A.App. Mo. 294/20.10& connectcdAppealsofVillage[3ijwasan LA.App. Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur pg ,j t t market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (I'^x.PW-lM to lix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Rcfcrcncc Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha(Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-l/ll) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (I'.x.PW-l/l1) vendorhad sold not only the land but the structurethereon includingtube well, boring, fitting,fixture, lane, by-lane,etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situated lands in the vicinity,now it is required to be consideredas to whetheradoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question. jO. Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadandOrs., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under;- .12. However, in eitherofthe saidcases whetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwith inuldingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in awelldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood I A. App. No. ]195/2008&connectociAppealsof VillageBharthal AApp. Nc. 294/2010&connoctcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App, No. 11,1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur t t or whether it he the determinationofthe market value ofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby sale ofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to befetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of theparties, with reference to theprice which theplots couldhavefetched ifsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidenceofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is tofind out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view oi the diificiiltiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Prc-DcterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped frceliold lanas. Following the dictum of Lai - Chand (Supra), a coordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of lA.App. No. H9;)/2008& conruiclfidAppealsofVillagoBharthal lA.App. No, ?,94/?01,0& connoctndAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 11,1/?0.1,0&conneclcrtAppealsofVillagePochanpur Rape 23 of 29 t t the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalation at the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentoi DwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,if the gap is of only of a few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications,, i.e., of Dvv'arkaPhase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. ]19ii/2008& connocrodAppealsof VillagfiBharthal lA.App. No. 7M/2QW& connnctpd Appnalsof VillageBijwa,san IA.App. No. l.],l,/?.01.0&connnctedAppealsotVillagnPochanpur s I escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years. I

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the I rcspondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is uriwarranted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SmhilKumar (Supjra), has granted escalation@10% per annmTi. A^fter having perusedjthe decision in Siishil Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher I potentialityof the acquired land over and above tljie market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying I upon Sushi! Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the[ReferenceCourt @ ]2% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%) per annurp.In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsof the respondentarc dismissed, I

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption ,l)f Government's minimum price of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by th^ ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market valu,b ofthe acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%o per annum grantedby the ReferenceC.ourt from the date of fixationof the miiniijnumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f VApril, 2(1)00 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not. I

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates ofj agricultural land I pertaining to the Notification in question has beerj assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquired land had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^'' October, 1994 declaring agiiculturallands in these three villagesjin question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land I use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itself'isnot sufficientto IA.App. No. 11.95/2008&CGnnectcdAppiidlsof VillageBharthal j iA.App. No. ?.!M/?.010& coniieclcdAppealsofVillage Bijwa.san lA.App. No. .1T,1/?,0.1,0&con,locledAppealsof VillagePochanpur I 25^29 I I i I i I I I I I I I i t % presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any developmentin and around the acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satscwg, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the I.and Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountof potentialityof the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samalkha (Lx.PW-1/11) without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(l:x.PW-l/l1) are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (F.x. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher comxpensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances.'Iherciore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State InclmtrlalDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC}(Supra),uniformrate ofcom,pensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally [actors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality, laking note of the fact that there is a gap between what IA.App. No. 119b/?.008&connoctiidAppealsof Village[Shtirthai 1A.App. No, 29-1/2010&conncctedAppealsofVlilaKeOijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/20.1,0&connertcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur . ' P -26 f y t t would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government's minimumagriculturalprice has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as in SushilKumar(Supra)and I find no reason to take a differentview than the one which had been taken by coordinate I3ench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)andSushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38Ihis Court is of the consideredview that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has lightly lelicd upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to,fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question. 1indingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But Ifind thai the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passingthrough Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Myrti side to DwarkaSub-City,PartIand Part 11, dividmgthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aloresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the IA.App, No. 1.19V2008&connoctodAppealsof VillagoHharthal lA.App. I\0. ^94/2010&conniKtodAppealsof VillagoHijwasan IA.App. No. 1.1.1./2010&connncwdAppealsof VillageI'ochanpur Pago 27 of 29 r-\ / / i settled legal position aptly highlightecl by the Apext Court in Mina Nausherwan Khan ra. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "fVhen once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶39Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite vakie qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices lor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands dillcfcntlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal.and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushii Kumar (Supra), I am inclinedto gram 10% increase over and above the marketvalue of the acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding I0% increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the Rererencc c:ourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.,While treatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appcllanisof VillagefBharthal and VillageBijwasan,the appealsof % lA.App. No. 1.1.95/2008&connpctcdAppealsof VillageBharthal 1A.App. IMo. ;'.9/I/?,q.lO&connccledAppealsof Vlllsge BIjwasun lA.App, No. 1,11/SoiO&connectedAppealsofVillaBOPochancur i .i-.- the appellants ol A'illage Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicaicci 1hus. ihc market value of the acquh'ed lands of these in.rec \ i!!agch in qucslion is determined@f']6,50,000/-perbigte for the Caicgorx -.A land and (w ?]4,69,600/-per bigha for the Category 'B' !anl1.s inqucstion. ^\vj •j\ > 4!. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statulon bendIts as per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin tlie judgment reported in Sunder vs, UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 arc gianted, c.xccptior the period where there is a delay in filingthe appeal, lor which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid, ihcse appellantswould be entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42'fhe above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsarc disposedof in the afoicsaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,it any,'depositedby citherside with the Registrar Cicncral ofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb (SUNIL GAUR) .;e , --iC'-.j ^ , /^. p •• / •> • / / •- IA.App. Mo. U9i;/2008&comicnndAppealsof Village!Bharthal 1A.App. Mo. » conncctedAppeai.sof VillagRI3ljwa.san IA.App. No. in/?.0.10&conn(K;U:dAppealsof VillagePochanpur THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW BELHI -t-LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANIBIRSHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.P.autela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for •respondent in appeals filed by UOI) 'Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for tMr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION Q}" INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LACAJOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharaia and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % nm.ioii C.M.. Appi. No. 752/2012 (For correction). Ihis is an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrectionin Orderof6"^ January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the.appellantshave acceptedthe notice aariTsmaRnaaagg AApp.No. 1195/2008 VPi/ f % ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. Ihe typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6^'^ January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthat the referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No, 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary coiTcciionsbe carried out rorthvvith. In view ot the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JAr pkb •— GAUR) JUDGE AApp.No.1195/2008 Page 2

* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 288/2010 Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Appellant Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki 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 appeal filed by UOI Mr.BankeyBihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. versus ZILE SINGH & ORS Respondent Through: Mr.RS.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSinghAdvocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38,41-46,49,50-69,73,75,76) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR