Ishwar Singh Yadav Etc v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. ~rT PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm /H' Of IN THE HIGH COURT 01^ DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ludament Reserved On: W August. 2011 ludqment DeliveredOn: September, 2011 LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/12011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH Mr.N.S.r UOI & ANOTHER Through; Mr.Sanji & Mr.Sa Nawani, Kaomud ^ , ••• Appellant Through: lvir.B.S.iyiann,Advocate MrDeepak Khosia, Advocate and " -^Jegi, Advocate. Is. • Respondents y Poddar, Senior Advocate ijay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AND t 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM IA 1007/2010&CM No.15181/2011, LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010 LA APP' LA.APP. 5/2oil, U.APP.' 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/201] 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. 11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 Si Award No, 06/2002-2003,Village-BhalswaJahangirPuri) Ah D LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatte'rs •rr + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 83/2011 LA.>A£E,_J3D/2I1U 164/2011,, CA^PP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011,, LA.APP. 242/201 244/2011," LA.APP. LA.APP.346/2011,LA.APP. 348/2011 &CM No.15194/2011^ 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.l LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. o.12871/2011, LA.APP. APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. /2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011. ^Sec. dated

30.07.1998 & lage-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) (Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Wlietlier tine Reporters of to see tfie judgment? local papers may be allowed

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANPRAIOG. I.

¶11proceed with an apolog notification issued later in arguments with respect to the / to the reader by referring to a Doint of time and then to a notificationissued prior in poirt of time; but the reason is that the learned counsel for the land owners had addressed notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notificationwhich was issued earlier in point of time.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010& coimectedmatters to a notification dated

15.09 2000 issued under Section of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a decla •ation under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai land at T2,87,916.66 per bigh lal<hs per acre i.e. fair market at ^13.82 lakhs per acre. .3. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference.Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Raj Sinoh I/5. Union of India, assessed the fiair market value of the acquired ^14,56,963 per acre. Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market value of the acquired a, which is equivalent to ?13.82 u'alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed j that both i.e. the learned Land s the Learned Reference Court, :et value of the acquired land. land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or

¶4It needs to be highlightei Acquisition Collector as well e while assessing the fair marl adopted the minimum price for agriculturalland fixed by the Government as on 01.04.2000, notified vide Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destina :ions were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition compensation, did not grant c

01.04.2000 till the date notif Collector, while, assessing ppreciation for the period from ication under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act' was issued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court gra ited appreciation for the said period of 165 days (a) 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the prize ^13,82 lakhs per acre.' . LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters • I n

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in same reve Jahangir Puri was acquired p JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisition lue estate of village Bhalswa ursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998,for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitatiionof by a declaration under Section 1998. After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed fair market v ?2,33,333 per ,bigha which is acre.

¶6Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land alue of the acquired land at equivalent to ^11.20 lakhs per ssessment made by the Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The L.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.11 1A/2008 titled Chandrawati l/s. Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair marketvalue of the acquired land, at ^11,46,670/- per destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 and question was issued on 30.7.1 Court granting enhancement interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment rr ere. The difference i in same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. :ollector adopting the land rate with effect from' 1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in 998 and the learned Reference @ 11% per annum for d i/vell as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected niat;ers crif fl Court by way of the appeals above.

¶8On behalf of Ic compensation, reliance was placed on following documentary evidence;-

(a) The rate.notified by the L&DO vide notification and cross objections mentioned nd owners, justifying higher dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by :iibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in "esidential and commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which is stated to be close to village Bhalaswa jahangir Puri, was fixed at.?5830/- per square nneter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per acre and it was urgec that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of ^1,17,96,200/- per acre.

(b) The rate charged commercial plot in Sanja; terms of the Resolutior (Exhibit PW-3/1), where: developed plots to the square meter and Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ?4,500/- per sqi material and good evid by MCD for allotment of f Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated

23.11.1987 by . MCD decided to allot transporters @ ?425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be ence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat:ers Page 5 of22 IfHI documents, learned ,co|unseI for the land owners argued that the rate] stated in the resolutions aforehoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, " market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made on account of the r undeveloped lands, fair le to ^"8,59,928/- per acre in would evidence that fai land comes to ?17,19,85 that even if 50% deducti development costs, fo market value would con the year 1976 and increasingthe same by 12% per \/alue as of 15.9.2000 would for land owners also auction record of plots in ne in the year 1997-98 and and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, "the advertisement auctions •annum, the fair market be ^24,76,592/- per acre

(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on the Rohini Residential Scher 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/: on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square met ranging between t23.7: according to. learned col ^14,36,36,363 per acre suitable deduction col pertaining to undevelope bigha was sold @ ^3 learned counsel urged th to ?56,93,163/- or ?11,£ "e in Jahangir Puri at a price lakh to ?28.4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of and counsel urged that Id be effected therefrom d agricultural land,

(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes 6,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters \ e contended that this sale after making a reas deed should be relied upon, onable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another. (Exhibit .PW-15/2), whe bigha situated in ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 reby land measuring 4-16 revenue estate of village Mamurpurwas sold to R^dha Swami SatsangVyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- piBr acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w be sold on 05.08.1996 ( ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a hereunder land was agreed to ?18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o; the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996.

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay . appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^oddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of n,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given on said value,, the price as on the date of the notificationunderSection4 comes to ?1,94,782.per bigha, and thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would adjoining village or to adopt price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the he price of developed liand for LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmati:ers Page 7 of22 <fnr. 'X fixing the marl<et value of undeveloped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition C3llector has assessed. the fair marl<etvalue of the land at a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference Court.

10.. It may.be noted that whsn judghient was reserved in the 19'^'^ August, 2011, decision had above captibned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA submitted that in response counsel for the land owners advanced on earlier oc' response.

¶11The topography of vilic l\ in a batch of land acquisition •App.No.266/2008 titled laiSinah l/s. UOL&Anr. in which similararguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned seniiDr counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to arguments of learned the^ arguments which he had :asion may be treated as his ge Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the depositionof Shri TrilokChand\HalqaPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5 Union of India in which he h Jahangir Puri. His testimony w and Libaspur are situated, in as explained the topology of the area while proving the Al<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa ould reveal that village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burariare situated in the Eiast, villagesSamaipurBadli and Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puri. West and villages Bharola and - ri the South of. village Jahangir LA.App.No.999/2010 & colmected,matters Page 8 of22 4nrT\ M' !:l' V

¶12I may additionally note that the ,lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published Iby the Governmentof NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa JahangirPun is situatedon t-hp easternside of G.T.KarnalRoad i.e. NationalHighwayNo.l. VillagesBadii, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoor side of National HighwayNo.l

¶13It needs to be highligh acquisition of agricultural Ian village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due nature. In the decision repoi India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c

¶76It has to be remembered 3ur (Narela) are on the western ted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangirPuri, post ds in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to urbanization was of a weal< ted as Amar Singh 1/s. IJninn nf it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had f emergency i.e. the year 1975- ;hat the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement of.slumandJ.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.h Ann which was reserved on

0.266/2008 iai Sinaii l/s. UO! &

12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronouncedon 19.8.2011,whesn instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that v\ hile assessing the fair market value of the land situated in ;.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-Wes villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi, Kalar and Bawana, I had noted t Delhi being revenue estate of Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat topology of the area LA.App.Np.999/2010 & connectedmatters • Ill ^'trVr, constituted a 'V at tine point of intersection wliere G.T.Karnai Road i.e. NH-1 and Rolntak Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a commoh point,, proceeding in different directions, at Sa.bzi iviandi. it needs to be higtnliglitedtiiat villageBlialswaJahangir Puri is outside the V aforesciidand as explained hereihabove and abuts towardsthe east ot^ NH-1.

¶15In the.appeals relatingto the said 10 villageswhere land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notificationsissued in the year 2000, 2,001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1). and sale deed dated .24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sut-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgmentdated 23.8.2011,I have discardedthese two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunden-

¶21The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3which |s dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh per the former, fair mc comes to f26.75 lakhs ^63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected ch is dated 25.4.2001. As rket value for the former per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all reasoning that the purchased by a .religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was . Js trust by the. name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had'stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religiouspurposeand was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters I , • K '" • IB iifll been held not to be rel fair marl<et value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization" and as per ister Annie, the secretary of :hat the organization had to pay the price for, the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requ site size suitable for requirement,ofthe organizationand is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee. the decjisionsreported as 1995 (1) 111 Land Acquisition OfficprEluru ^ nr<^ i/s. Isti Rohini & Anr (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition nffirpr (Refer para 13) sale transactions evide'nced in a sale, deed which are ten of Section 51A of the L.liered in evidence by virtue A.Act 1894 have not to be deed to determine the market v the reason there may Which have led the buye alue of land in an area for be special circumstances .to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informedseller w.i-ho,,. ---need by any special :y to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all without being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bi studied the market and available land in the area; has understood the topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I. would be failing if l do not highlightthat the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20 5.2002, which was pccepted by the learned ReferenceCourt pertainiipgto the notificationdated 27 1.2003 where-underagriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesser price i.e. ^17,74 109/- per acre as .against th' ^63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre for Ex.P\ e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 V-1/3. The 2 sale deeds • w LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having .intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from t le reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc market value of subjec' have been acquired ahc such large an area, it v reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported onno J ^ ^ decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Smnh (singe,deceased) thru LRs l/s. UO! r?rc jt was highlightedthat the sale deed,therein by which L&T I purchased8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which .had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected, therein could not be treated as .a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as tte basis to determine fair marketvalue. The argumentignoresthe reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3^^ the price arrived at would be the same as wo jld be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds bove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair —,—_ lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land when the acquisition is of vould make all the more a ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result would be failing not to decision cited by learned LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatte|i-s \ produced by the Govern ^1,3.7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ment were giving a price of and sale deed under ed the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of f 1/3'"'' would be deducted ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of id notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995 and

16.11.1995 and Court determinedfair marketjalue as of the said dates at same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ?2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is_ not to be read pedanticallybut . ^2,15,1,60/- per bigha, fronn the sum of ^3,26 highlighted that in the • the sale was 1993 a Section of the Land meaningfully. It is not sale deed in question as the basis for-if it was so, appreciation for 2 given. I would highligl" hereinbefore already contradiction in the valt that the Court treated years had required to be t once again, that I have noted inherent e of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsicmutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value." }o

¶16For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence' to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa jahangir Puri.

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalsw a jahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of US lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ^5,70,000/-;

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ?15,70,000/- per acre as .on

01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 &• connected matters difficult to comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 IV. abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeeda puzzlethat in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ?15.7 lakhs per acre. I ne 39 of its decision, the learned. Reference Court, years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph while ned that the said price was for examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer and , without being influenced by particular land, and had thus not reliable evidence wherefr track of land had to be fixed.

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where an abnormally high p evidence, of neither bu an informed willing seller and special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as om fair market Value of a large issue in my decision dated 008 iai Sinoh Ws. uoi & Anr i.e. •ice for a parcel of land is with /er nor seller being well-informed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reite

¶20As regards. auction rat situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen irate the same. tes of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, 1 do not find Its of the learned {counsel for the land owners and concur with the. decision k the learned ReferenceCourt containedin paragraphs 29 an;d 30 which are premisedon the decisionof th^ SupremeCourt reportedas La! LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 14.of 22 reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots or flats by

¶21In my decision dated Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769, Similar is the ividence relating to auction rates DDA.

3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh ]/s. UP! & Qrs., I had extensivelydiscussedthe law declared by the Supreme Court in case. with referenceto price at which ceveloped plots were allotted by differentagenciesi.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevantobservations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decisionin iaiSinoh'scase are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted lar d sold by DSIDC or DDA with , ui vviLri referenceto the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in :sidential Scheme developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in the same 3er which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as the value of land in the s

¶30it is no doubt true, Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area and Narela Residential S « I — II •••••>—If most unreliable to determine Jbject cases. as held even by the learned with development of ^ Rohini Residential Scheme cheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality wouljd translate itself.

¶311hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping In view the observation and the findings of the SupremeCourt in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence ^s reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, 1promise the. reader of the decision, tp deal with the s'ame while I shall be discussing as to what should ;be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters • '• I' I •

¶22Highlighting:that in L/ Chancfs. case (supra) the" Supreme Court held that such raW data was meaninglessand was top, inchoate .wherefrpm fair: marl<et value could be .crystallized. . •

¶23, I reiterate the reasoningto hold that price at which lyiCD allotteddevelopedplots in Saijay GandhiTransportNagarand price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevantto determinefair marketvalue ofagriculturalland.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&Dd for charging unearned increase when, lease-hold propertyiunder L&DO is transferredby the perpetuallessee,sufficewould it be to state that the same relatesto developedplots and .'on the parity of reasoning in: Aa/ Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically reference to. village Rithala Rohini.Residential" Scheme, I n (iiscussed and .discarded with where lands were acquired for egate the. plea for compensation to be enhancedwith referenceto L&DO rates noting that Iam concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi758.01 bigha and 929,05 bigha.

¶25From the topologyof th(j area and as per the testimony

i) who" appeared as PW-2 in LAC : village Burari is on the east of and indeed the; plan for Delhi (ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl of Trilok Chand .(Halka Patwar 1\ib.ll2A/200S it emerges tha village. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl would reveal that the two vil and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel tovyards; Mubarka Chowk from the Tibetan' Re-settlement colony adjdining-the famous 3urudwara Majhu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 16 of22 ' f' . yp thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable. market value of the land situated acquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 In a batch of LA./.ppeals, lead matter being LA. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raibaf & Ors. \/s. iJninn nf inHi^ s:, Qr^ In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60

¶26While assessing the fair •in village Burari, which was a dated

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, notification dated 24.7.1998. notification dated

18.07.2003 ?19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ^7,28,512/-per acre for Category B land. Ir assessed the fair market value d assessed the fair market value

580.82 per acre for Category A land, no,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464,65per acre for Category C land pertaining to the The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at lai Singh's case {supra), I had of land in 10 villages as under:- S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre) 1-Pooth Khurd

7.8. 2000 ^4.75 for Category 'A' ?14.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 ^4.75

¶3Bawana

7.8. 2000 n4.75 for Category 'A' n4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd .

11.c NJ O O O ^4.835 for .Category 'A' ^14.46413 for Category 'B' EA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters ( 4!ir .5. Narela

2.51.2001 • • I' I n6.165 , for Category 'A' ns.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan 22, 8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶7Alipur

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 ^

16.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B' -10. Sanoth

7.12.2001 n7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ^8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶271.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' ns.94:912 for Category 'B' ?18.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Ka ah

27.; L.2003 fl9.435 for Category 'A' ?18.94912 for Category 'B' ?18.47539 for Category 'C 21: In /ai Singh's case (sup minimum land rates enhancec to time, and found the same ra) I had also analyzed by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojmected matters ' I Government officers and had found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gafrai Sinah l/?. IIOI ^ /4£7£1, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander l/s. UOI. ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah l/s. UP! and an unreported decision in LA.App.Na.866/2005 'Mahender Sinah 1/5-. UP! & Qrs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence various dates between the years :o the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 tO: 53 of the said decision as under;-

¶50The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t paragraphs as also the time to time by the Go various notifications issued from /ernment of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above b ;ing out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Del from the year 1990. As T4.65 lakhs per acre whi of 1.4.1997 i.e. the incre hi over the years commencing of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ch rose to no lakhs per acre as ase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054%increase in 7 years and the averageprice increasewould be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of-1.4.2001. It. sh|bws that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corrotjorativeevidence for this would be the decision of the Gairais case (supra), wh above.

¶51r need to elaborate decision in Gairafs ca pertaining to fair marke village Holambi Kalan as Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 a little more with respect to the se. Discussing evidence t value of agricultural land in of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/20108c connectedmatters Cl ;r per annum was ^95,00C Court discussed tihe valuation on basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre "" M-for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to no,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered,the prices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked^^ out the mean average figure of ?9,76,12.1/-per acre for Category 'A' Category 'B' lands. -ru" _ . . . . potentiality had been Government issued Dn w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions inst the minimum price notified / — — / ~ I The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as aga as of 1.4.1997 at ?10 lakhs per acre, sale-instances were highlighting that the pric

¶52The decision in /^ to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by .the Court w commercial and indu agricultural land in.Delhi s was ^10,03,364/- per acre. hender Sinoh's case, pertaining red to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential, strial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and la potentiality, the same h nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality of the notification with concerned, virtually no c evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which Division Bench was evelopment had^taken place in Village Bawana and' Holambi Kalan. an^ nobody had exploited the potential, para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The c As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the. market ecisions in Ga/'raj's caise and LA.App.No;999/20r0& connectedmatters /IT-!. Mahender Singh's • ca translated itself into a when prices rose by se highlight that potentiality reality between 1990 and 1997 about

16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate mtum and the acceleration fell to n to 11% per annum. One reason to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and indus;trial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated. with the requisite, mome between 10% per annun could be that pursuant

¶53The empirical evic respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras relying upon, being fane ence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the; land owners, in rned Reference Court has given upon and for which I have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not , . _ iful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some refereqices in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of tl|ie date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the. fair market value of agricultural lands would be n9,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was :Sold for ^5,39,690/- and ?70,160y-was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- spent would yield the p the date of th.e sale i.e.-2 (55,39,690/" + ^70,160/-) were rice ?17,74,109/- per acre as of

0.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by .either parties other than tf Government from time to t e minimum price notified by the ime, 1 hold that Learned ReferenceCourt has rightly acJopted the correct principleand has relied upon the correctevidenceand has given the correct appreciationsby suitablyincreasingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between the dates when minimum prices, were notified and the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters % Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cross objections,whether filed by the land owners or the Union of India.

¶29I leave the parties to bear their own cost. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters (PRADEEP NASMDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-44 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 200/2011 , ISHWAR SINGH YADAV ETC Appellant Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG