Lakhmi Chand & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IL GAUR) JUDGE 4f- ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % • Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.1195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIRSHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Tai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roiitand Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate -• Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocatc. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNIONOF INDIA& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/XJOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA LA.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.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.701/2008& CiVr.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan IA.App. No. m/2030&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pggg ^9 V LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA APP 772/2008• CMr^l &CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objeitions);\A.APR774S& TAAT?;. (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP.777/2008;LA.APP.782/2008& CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Obiectionsv' CMtfo^f5/200Q^Vr'^''^nK^^ LA.APP.785/2008;LA.APP.798/2008& CM.No^l5/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No931/2009 LA.APP805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.8I3/2008& C^M.NoJ795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008-LA APP 890/900S-LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008 LA.APP832 2008' LA APP 833 2008^ LA.APR844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;'LA.APP.873/2r& CM.No77^ J LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009(Cross-Obiections)- CMNo7oSr LA.APP.901/2008;LA.APP.915/2008;LA.APP.951/2008& TA'adh (^^'o^s-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008-t"a ^^-9^4/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections)-LA APP 975/2008-LA.APR976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008;LA.APP.986/2008I CM.No572^^^^^^^^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008 (Cioss-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) r^Aon CM,No.599/2009(Cross-Objections):LA.APP 1046/2008 LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Obiections^ LA.APP.1049/2008&CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections)-LaTpP1^ laAPP lolsooost (Crcss-oijec^oni™ CM No 1766/9noo rr 1^/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008& CMNo 75V20?? LA.APP.I055/2008;LA.APP.I057/2008& CM.NoJ52/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 J LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0biections^ r^ ADD ^ CM.No.546/2009(Cross-Obiections) LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1081/2008 &CM.N0.462/2OO9S-Ob cfe CMN02TS08 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP,1086/2008 & CM^o.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No619/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008-LA.APP.1095/2008 CMn73839/2009\c (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l108/2008& CMNo3828 ^09r^^^^^^^ LA.APP.1109/2008;LA.APP.1110/2008& cS 383?2009 LA.APP.1111/2008;LA.APP.1112/2008& ^ LA.APP.1113/2008& CM.No.3826/2009 (Cioss-Objections);LA.APP.1115/2008;LA.APP.1116/2008"LA APP 1121/2008 LA.APP.1126/2008;LA.APP.1129/2008& CM.No550^009 (ci-oss OW^^^^^^^ LA.APP.1130/2008;LA.APP.1131/2008& CM.No 66/9009 (Qos Ob ec T^APP LA.APP.1135/2008&CM.No74^09(So^ObSloS TAAr)r) ^ CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections)LA APP 1140/2008 O''f LA-APP.llsVzOOS^^^^ Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1159/2008; LA.APP.1161/2008*IAAPP il66/9nn7 IAAPP II7SI LA AW^'57?/9m'^^(Cross-Objections);LA.APP."1168/2008 lZ:;:SoT' TAAPP LA.APP.1183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.1185/2008;LA.APP.1186/2008&CM.No.7013/2009 LA.App. No. 119^2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur L %• poss-Objections);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008-LA APP 1199/9008 LA.APP.1193/2008;LA.APP.l194/2008;LA.APP.l195/2008'LA.lpp 97^ TA ^^CM.No.6935/2009('Cross-ObjectionsV ' LA APP 1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.120^2008; LA.APP.1210/2068;LtAPP:i2?1^^008 LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP 1223/2008-LA APP 129'i/9nns^ IA.APP,I22&200S;'LA.APFAmOOm: LA.APP.1280/2008;LA.APP.1281/2008 LA.APP1283^8 LA.APP.33/20a9; LA.APP.'S;' L^APP LA APP 73/2009 & e-'O^^-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009! LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP12l/fo09 SpnlZt K:S1=: i S : !=; KS.IS i r crsEs M.S3SSrss.f, ,5™t •••• kS NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13 12 2000 (GRID-B) Reseiyedon: DecemberOR^ 2011 ttMLQuncedon: Jonunrv 06. '2012 ' LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEVENDERKUMAR , " -P, . ,, Appellant Through; Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh LA.APP.No, 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof ViHageBharthal AApp. no, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBto •App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur / • ^y-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) versus UOI & ANR LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/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. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 11/2010 53/2010 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.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.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,'VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan [.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page4of 29 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor 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,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. LA.APP. ,111/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 •LAAPP. 228/2010 ^L^PP. 254/2010 LS:^P7292720^ LA.APP. 307/2010 LA.APP. 395/2010 LA.APP. 420/2010 LA.APP. 466/2010 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010 LA.APP. 919/2010 LA.APP. 65/2011 LA.APP. 120/2011 LA.APP. 476/2011 LA.APP. 523/201 r LA.APP. 53672011 LA.APP. L^PP. l.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

48.5/2011 525/2011 554/2011 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. 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 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 LA.APP. No. Il9y2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. i94/2010&connGctedAppealsofVillageBllwasan -A.App. No. ni/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % 06'01.2012

¶1Since-the groundson which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-IP in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13'^ December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertainmg to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward 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' (withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired LA.App. No. H95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 17\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur / 'iV agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 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, referencesrelating to Village Pochanpurhave been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancementof compensationsought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai V5. State of Goa and Am.,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Am.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 See 66\ \ Ranvir Singh and Am, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Naml (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCAI^E 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 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 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha S. Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand'AcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i;\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page^of 29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 115\ Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); Lai Chand V5. Union of India and Anr., {2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority,

(2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh V5. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) byLRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10SCC627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar V5. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strength of the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over a periodof time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes througlithe land ofVillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi l-A.App. No. H95/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. Nc. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pgggg jg and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasaiiand Samall<iia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOilDepotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside of VillagesBamnoli and Dhool Siraswere also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/mapto highlightthatthe boundar}' of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of 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/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe-entireland of VillageBharthal had ceasedtoberuralinviewoftheNotificationof24''"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& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pagg9of 29 V" Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, {\995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to 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 illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. 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 ^57 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 the acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learned counselfor the appellantson the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotment of alternate plots mthe year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page10 of 29 f? )3 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis ofthe L& DO rates ofthe, developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton 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-examinationof appellant dated

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

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475-of 2007. The Hon'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur " P3g6 11 of 29 case the averagesaleprice is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averagingof different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupona certanland. f} Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoringthe material which indicatethat the marketvalueofthe 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 v^. 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 boundariesof Delhi State. The masterplan and Notijicationsof 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 appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"" amendment of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f 1.6.1993IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was electedfrom there. No Panchayatelections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a directeffect on the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App.Nc. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l^-App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App.No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur auctionedsimilarlysituatedland as commercialblocks at the rate of about ^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 accountthepossibilityofchangeof the use ofthe landalthoughthe landwas acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II It is reiteratedthat the land use of VillageDhoolSiras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24 101994 although, they clearly establish the commercial P^tiahtyofthesaidland In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA) (2010)3see 661 it was heldthatthepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determiningvalue of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhasgot buildingpotentialityto be used Jor buildingpurposes in immediate or in nearfuture needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. Tlae lands were acquiredfor purpose ofputting up residential quaiters.^As aportionofthe landis beingconsideredas house site, the adjoininglands have the potentialof beingputin betteruseas housesitesin thenearfuture.'

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factualdetailshave beenprovidedwith aprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargtmientsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof •App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union of India Am, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area are relevantto determinethe 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 correctmarket value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation leflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddai,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be talcen as relevant"evidence for deteminationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connectedwith the land in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand other factorsnamely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered• and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceuponthe 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.656/2008titledas SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat sharpincrease in piice in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur / and the purchaser as no prudent person having Imowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 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 amium has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scope for furtherenhancementfrom the priceof acquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@ 12% per annum and the same desei-vesto be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the'decisionscited,what emergesisthatthetrue marketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto awilling LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page15 of 29 /^r. n d seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue ofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:-

(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or villagewhich had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

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

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput uponthatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

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

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

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

¶18The potentialityoflandfor the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildmgpurposesdependsupon a large numberoffactors. For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for e LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ Page X6 of 29 ; 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 relevantfactors for detennination. ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsmall piecesofland relied upon b}'^ the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepiecesof land were not available.

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

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon I on behalfof the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarlysituatedhaving similar advantage availableto them even as regards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

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

¶21ApexCourtmValliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction 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 lA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan L/\.App.No. 111/20108t connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of tivo 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. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as folio ws:- "It 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. "

¶23Principlesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands 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 - situationof the land, nature oj developmentin surrounding area, availabilityof land for developmentin the area, and the demandfor land jn the area. In rural areas •unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal iA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pageis of 29 On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreper year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5%) to 7.5% per annurn. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value byproviding appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands inprevious years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquis itions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market-valueof a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App. Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page19 of 29 ( _ acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^ate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnationin prices or sudden spurts inprices affectingthe verystandard ofincrease."

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtinHaryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative'salesmethods.What v^as said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value M'ith referencetopreviousstatus or situation should be avoided anda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthesamenotification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitaiysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price whichvariedfrom ^52 lacs to T62 lacsper acre. • 26. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand RadhaSwamiSatsang, Beas mrespectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof the landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required' to be answered. Evidently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds ITV.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur (Ex.PW-1/4to 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 samemarketprice.It was dependentuponthe natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establishthe advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agi-iculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaidsale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas'v^hohad purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25"" March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

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

¶27In the instantmatters,though the land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlandswere being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were,not developed lands. No prudent person having Imowledge of prevailing LA.App,No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^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 (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube 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 representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvalueof the acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin tHe neighborhood \ LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal \ LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan '• ITV.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur . Page22 of29

¶31orwhetheritbe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin 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 theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasput and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th ofthe market value of the landfound out accordingto its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving increasedvaluefor such bujldingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such,for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " In view oftlie difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land chargedby the DDA afieracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same,and transferringperpetual leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench ofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands'asbeingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueof a"'''m°' ^ connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thius, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentof developedlandor the DDA's Pre-DetemiinedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueof the acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whether progressiveincrease method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the 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, learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificafionfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,sfillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris morethan the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincrease method in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal • LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶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 coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), I fmd 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 viewof the matter,the cross-objectionsof therespondentaredismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deservesto be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by the learnedcounsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue ofNotificationof 24"^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban.It is tnrethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto l-A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pg^g jsof29 ^ 3^ presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been mcreasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laidtheirhands on other sale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (IISIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which -generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown,Govermnent'sminimumagriculturalpricehas been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired landsin Jai Singh (Supra)as well as in SushilKumar(Supra)and I find no reasonto take a differentview than the one whichhad beentakenby coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation ofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passingthrough Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionofthe ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentiality,beingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseoverand abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the LA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur \ 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 usedfor putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase inprice attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶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 probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no special featuresto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decisionin Sushil Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&• connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page28 of29 y : , the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined@ f16,50,000/- per higte for the Categoiy 'A' land and @^"14,69,600/-per l3i;pfea for the Category'B' lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the ciDmpensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is a delayin filingthe appeal, \ for whichperiodofdelayno interestonthe enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid tenns with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,if any, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. C' C ^(StJNIL GAUR) JUDGE January 06, 2012 pkb ^ Poi- • LA.App, No. 119S/2008& connected Appealsof VillageBhartlial LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I J IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,MrAmitMaan,MrJai Prakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate A^r.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.RauteJa, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) ^, Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefor • Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: HON'BLEMR..lUSTICESUNILGAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M.Appl.No. 752/2012(Forcorrection) This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof6"' January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 p. 3/ ofthe appHcation.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 counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand itis orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no." 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. In view ofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 12,2012 pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 -*=^raiLGAUR) JUDGE Page 2

% + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 254/2010 LAKHMI CHAND & ORS Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant 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) 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 Shanna and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR