Union of India v. Deepak

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb INIL GAUR) JUDGE Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. % t % THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November IS, 20JI Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP. 1195/2008 (VII.LACE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHAllMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Toniar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.iNegi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiitray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.]3hananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul TripathL Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOl) versus U>J!()N ()FINDIA& 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 l.AC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar. Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA J.A.APP.412/2008 & CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.452/2008; LA.APP.453/2008; LA.APP.688/2008 & CM.No.5990/2010 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.697/20()8& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; lA.App. No. 119.S/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 1'V.App. No. ?.94/?.010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan 1A.App, No. 111/?0.10& connected Appealsof VillagePochanpur Page1 of 29 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-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-Objections); 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; LA.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.9]5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); 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) LA.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.]046/2008 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, LA.APP.1053/2008& CM.No.416/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008& CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections) l./v.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.107j/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections) l^A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections), LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (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.1108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008 LA.APP.l126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009.(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l140/2008, LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP. 1157/2008; LA.APP. 1158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008 LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008 LA.APP.l 170/2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA.APP.l 173/2008 LA.APP.l175/2008; LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.l 181/2008 LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections), LA.APP.l 184/2008; LAAPP.l 185/2008; LA.APP.l 186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 lA.App. No, 1195/7.008& connocted Appealsof VillageBharthal 17\,App.No. 294/2010 & corinocted Appeals of VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 2of29 % % LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.l192/200*^ LA.APP.1193/2008;LA.APP.l194/2008; LA.APP.l195/2008; LA.APP.l197/2008 IAAPP /^^•^°-6935/2009(Ci-oss-Objections);'LA.APP.1200/2008 ' LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA APP 1211/2008 (MCswy/fnZ^^^'^nK''''^'223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM No1s4l9nn??rI.A.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP.l241/2008& PP 107™! LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 ' LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP 1279/2008 IaPP LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/2008 ' LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 IA APP7-/9nnQ t (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 .A.APP.7j/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP. 108/2009 J.A.APP. 136/2009 l.A.APP. 140/2009 LA.APP. 162/2009 LA.APP. 197/2009: LA.APP.202/2009 LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); • l.A.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP,404/20]0; LA.APP.95/2009 & LA.APP. 109/2009 LA.APP. 137/2009 LA.APP. 143/2009 LA.APP. 187/2009 LA.APP. 198/2009 LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.241/2009 LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; CM.No.953/201 LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP.144/2009; LA.APP.190/2009; LA.APP.199/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 . ' X.^wo/z.u(jy oc CM.No.7027/2009 (Cioss-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009& CM.No.970/2011 (Cross-ObiectinnsV LA.APP.2n/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; Lr?PP.Sot LA.APP.227/2009;LA.APP.230/2009& CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 , LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP.1138/2008; LA.APP.l177/2008;LA.APP.1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 aielatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Re^rved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: Janvary 06. 2012 f LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BI.IWASAN) DISVENDERKUMAR Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. No. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal I.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur I Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR J.A.APP.. r.A.APP. LA.APP. I.A.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. r.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010& Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate 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,Advocatesin appeals filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma 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. LA.APP. LA.APP. 11/2010 53/201,0 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.Ax^P. 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. 49/2010 54/2010 59/2010 223/2010 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 725/2010 731/2010 764/2010 364/2010 99/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.AP LA/&?. .APP. l^A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 26/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (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. : 195/2008& conncctndAppnalsof Village Bharlhal l-A.App. No. 294/2010& connectodAppnalsofVillageBijwasan t.A.App. No. 111/2010& connoctpdAppealsofVillage Pochanpur % (GRID-C) fi^> Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.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 for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma 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. n 1/2010 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 1A.App. No. 1.1.95/P.008& connoclnd Appeals of VillageBharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) 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, thereforewith the consent of learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/LA/13417dated 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 comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquired by 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 lyy.App No. 119^/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No. ]11/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 6of 29 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had 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, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by • the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Homing Board vs'. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Am.,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors rao State ofHaryana and Ann,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsiidar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 See 66\-,RanvirSingh and Am% ra. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, 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 ra. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SeAIii 362; Avinash DhavajiNaik vs. State of Maharashtra,(2009) 11 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 Sml Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 see 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors ExecutiveEngineer, lA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectfidAppealsofVillageBharthal 1-A.App. No. ?.9'1/2010& connpctedAppGaLsofVillage Bijwasan IA.App. IMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page7of29 i Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15] RisalSingh & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr,, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValUyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (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(20]1) DLl 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs\ Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Dm Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(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 Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia,2010

(170)DLT371.

¶6On the strengthofthe aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was uiged 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 periodof time and the same cannot be limitedto 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 throughthe land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App, No. 1195/2008& connectcdAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagel!ijwasan l-A.App. iMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ggofzg t and Oil, Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarkaSub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two poitions; (i) North bastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarm 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 ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslmdc^to highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated 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/ commcrcial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland of VillageBharthal - had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24^''October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama LA.App. No. .1195/2008& connGctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal 17\.App, No. 294/2010&connGctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. IMo. 111/2010&conncclcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur Paggg 29 Q-j li Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,if the authoritiesdo not putthe land to any use, it would not mean that there is no buildingpotentiality.

¶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 because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplarsare overvalued bccause of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Anjam Molu Dessai State of Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageof sale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to X51 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueof theacquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learned counsel for the appellants on 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 potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is LA.App, No. 1195/2008& connnctedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& conncctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagoPochanpur « sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on 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. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 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 down 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 other factors which as per established law has to be considered before ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land. Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Llon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deed, showing higher rate should, not be disregarded in LA,App. No. 119S/2008& connected Appnals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals'of Village liijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appealsof Village Pochanpur Page11 of29 « case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin 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 averagingof different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certanland. 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 landis 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'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding 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 boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinent to mention that the appellant leadevidencein respectofthe 7f'' amendment of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act M>as amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was electedfrom, there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr v^. Union of India and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpayfor the subjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' ... auctionedsimilarlysituatedland as commercialblocks at the rate ofabout ^2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe 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 landalthoughthe land was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiteratedthat the land use of Village DhoolSiras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be flgr/cw/rwra/and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. tl) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar (LAf (2010)3see 661 it was heldthatthepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property^ acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be 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 treatedas house sites The lands M^ere 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.

¶13Ill tlie brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual detailshave been providedwith aprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with the co-appellantsof the Otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethat the effectof l.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal -A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan IV\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur i t urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change'u^ land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors, Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-Dctcimined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevantto determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Aiguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence lor determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special (ancy 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 sharp increase in price in ashortperiodcannotbe.takento be realisticuntil reasonsfor such shaip increase are explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthai l-A.App, IMq, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No..11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagoPochanpur i LA.App LA.App l-A.App and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendmthe marketwouldpay such ahigherpay 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-DetcrmincdRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis Court in Sushi!Kumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has already been factoredinto, while fixing the mmimum mdicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1" April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted that there is no scopefor fLirtherenhancementfroiTx the priceofacquired lands as lixed 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 consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,what emergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling No, 1195/2008& conncclcdAppealsofVillage Bharthal No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur p 15 f29 I _4-itiio and the best evidence is the comparablesale instances. Whik^ dealingwith the questionofpotentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered In assessing the market value thereof, stands icitciatedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass.vs. State ofHaryana <£ Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 in these words:-

(i) thesituationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or villagewhich had been growingin size iKcause of Us commercial, industrial, educational rebgiousor any otherkindofimportanceor became Oj Its explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the mildings be they residential, commercial or ^ industrial,as the casemay be;

(ill) possibilityofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beputup on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor usins theacquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

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

(Vi) benefits or advantages of educationalinstitutions health care centres, or the like in the surrounding a<eas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

(Vli) lands groundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland

¶18Ihepotentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas alsofor buildingpurposesdependsuponalargenumberoffactors. For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purposefor l-A.App.No. ,111/2010&connoclGdAppoal.sof VillagePochanpur t t 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).Whilereiteratingthe relevantfactorsfor deteiiTiination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Smgh (supra)that the exemplarsof smallpieces of land relied upon b}' the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsoflargepiecesofland werenot available.

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

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behall of the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference either mlocation, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage availableto them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20n is a well establishedproposition of law that the burden of piovingthe true marketvalue of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for aparticularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacyof conrpensation awarded is on the claimant.For this proposition,the decisionof the ApexCourtin Kiran Tandoit(Supra)can be refen'edto withadvantage.

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnoteofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held thatdeduction of 40% towards development charges was Improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserveattention,whichare as under;- lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal tA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page .17 of 29 % "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

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

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. lA.App. No. 1195/2.008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal • . , ! , ITV.App. No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePocha.npur Page 18of29 On the otherhand, in urbanorsemi-urbanareas, wherethe developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivity all around, the escalation in marketprice is at a muck higher rate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreper year, duringthe nineties.On the otherextreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated foryearsorrose marginallyata nominalrate of!%> or2% 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 ui ban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15% per annum, tthe correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat bestbe onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%perannum. 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 specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. Normally, recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe market value by providingappropriateescalationover the provedmarketvalue of nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there • is no evidenceofanycontemporaneousaletransactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond thai it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only a 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. Mo. 119.')/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& conncctodAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pagg jgof29 % 1^)1; acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the "rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrence ofvaryingperiods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts inprices affecting the very standard ofincrease. "

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court inHaryana 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 for the same purpose, say for forming 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 compensationshould be awardedfor all lands acquired under the same notification. "

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

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basically between one set of co-ownersand Radha Swami Satsang, Beas in rcspect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pochanpurreflect the correct market value of the land in thevillagesin questionisthe moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds lA.App. No.1195/2008 & connocted Appeals of VillageBharthal l7\.App, Mo. 294/2010 & ccnnectcd Appeals of VillageBijwasan I.A.App,No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpui Page20of29 (]ix.PW-]/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof 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 exemplarscannotbe treatedas 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 elicitedfrom 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 purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union o/' /wflfw, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwliile holdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands • was changedmuch priorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person haviiig knowledge of prevailing l-A.App.No. 119;;/2008&connectcdAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A.App.:\io. 294/2010&conncctodAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App,i\lo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagel^ochanour % AT marketpricc ofthe land in questionwould pay such a high price unless and until such purchaseis meantfor specialconsiderationand so, in the consideredopinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds (h.x.PW-1/4 to I'.x.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplarof Village Samalkha(Bx.PW-1/11) lelied upon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11)was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Lx.I W-1/11)vendorhad sold not onlythe land but the structurethereon mcludingtube 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 requiredto 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 m.arket value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation ofmarket value ofacquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. K Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedby saleofplots in a wen aevelopealayoutin tHe neighborhood IA.App, No. Iig.s/zoos & connRctodAppealsofVillage Bharthal ' I.A.App. No. 29^2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ITV.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pggg 22 of 29 % or whetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land with buildingpotentiality with reference to thepricefetchedby sale ofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further, M'here no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired land M'ith re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound 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 evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicatingthat there y.'as no immediate demand, as such, for bidldingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view ol the difficultiesin adoptionofrate ofland 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 1ates/Pre-DcterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lahas. Following the dictum of Lai Chand (Supra),a coordinateBench of this Court,in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. Mo, 119;j/2008& connrclcdAppealsofVillage Bharthal , ' . l-A.App. No. 291/201.0& conncclcdAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. Mo. 13.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 23 of 29 % $ the undevelopedacquired lands. Ihus, I find that the ReferenceCourt" has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Prc-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe market value ofthe land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the yeai 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,still the price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. jj. Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a jeliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofa few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap between the two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value b)' providing appropriate LA.App. No. 119ij/2008& connpctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal 17\.App.Mo. zg-i/zoio & conncctodAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. lTI/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pago 24 of 29 n % escalationoverthe marketvalue of the nearby land of the previousyearsT

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentarc dismissed.

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

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquired land had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24''' October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994 the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut that by itself is notsufficientto LA.App. No, 1195/2008& conncctedAppealsofVillageBiiartlial lA.App, No. ?.9'l/?.010& connGctedAppealsofVillage Bljwasan lA.App. No. 1T1,/?.010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur % lA.App. 'i.A.App. i/\.App, picsumc that the acquired lands had gained potentiaHty for bei consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lacking on the vital aspcctofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyrelied upon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe said lands was for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been incicasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid their hands on other sale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Isx.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityarid potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Hx.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (bx. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Iherefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate of compensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum piice fixed by the Government for the agriculturalland in Delhi, which•generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what No. 1195/2008& conncclRdAppealsofVillage Bharthal No. 294/2010& connortodAppealsofVillageBijwasan No. 111/2010& conneclnciAppealsofVillagePochanpur % would be cxpccted to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown,Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in JalSingh (Supra)as well as in SushilKumar(Supra)andIfind Jio reason to take adifferentview than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)and SushilKumar(Supra).

¶38Ihis Court is of the consideredview that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has lightly lelied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question. I'indingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation ol the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But Ifind thatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Aiiport,IndianOil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passingthi-oughVillage Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NIi-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityoi the acquiredlands has somehow missed the attentionofthe ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof this Court, on accountof aloresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the LA.App, IMo. 119b/2008&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l7\.App.No. 294/2010&connocledAppealsofVillageISijwasan LA.App. No. 1.1,1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur P 27 f29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Namherwan Khan vs. Collector,

(1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When 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 accjidred land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such bidldingpotentiality. "

¶39Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabiHties of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. liowever, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), 1 am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference C^ourt in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of % $ IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connnctcd Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App, No, ?.9fl/2010 & connccted Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connnclGd Appeals of VillagePochanpur « the appellanis of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent inchcaLcd abo\c. Thus, the market value of the acqmred lands of these inrcc \illages in quesiionis determined@^^16,50,000/-per bigha for the CaiogoiA A !and and @^14,69,600/-per bigha for the Category 'B' lands in question. h^J-'

¶41On the aioresaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, slaiutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin ihc jLidgincni reported in Sunder UOI 2001 (93) DlVf 569 are granted,exccpi tor the periodwhere there is adelay in filingthe appeal, for which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42'fhe above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar (General ofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. i Jafiuary 06, 2012 pkb LA.App. No. .119:;/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. IMO. 291/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App. No, 111/20.10& co.nnectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE ,• •^ ,1 rr. i . 1^'Hn .. : / ...I : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -f-LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA Appellant IhroLigh; Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mr.R.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sliarma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. Respondents Ihiough: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathalc,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalShaniiaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, A.dvocates for DDA. CORy\M: HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 12,01.2012 CM^pl No. 752/2012 fFor correction^ 1his is an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrectionin Orderof6"' January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice % AApp.No. 1195/2008 " % ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The 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 counsel appearingfor 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 correciionsbe carriedout forthwith. In \-]ew ofihe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof fSUNILGAUR) JANUARY12, 2012 JUDGE pkb U AApp.No.1195/2008 Page 2

t t- % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 289/2010 UNION OF INDIA Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 Appellant 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 UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. versus DEEPAK Respondent Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh Advocates 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