Union of India v. Hukam Chand

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vx Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IL GAUR) JUDGE O ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT-NEW DELHI (GRID-A) E£_s^ved_oniNoyM^ Fronounced on: Jamiary 06, 2012 LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL RANBJRSHARMA Appellant rhrough; Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA''erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.AnandYaday and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohfas, Advocate. Mr.Raghiivinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.I-I.S.Rautela, Advocate N4i:.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mi-.PankaJVivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav.Mr.]3eepakKhosia, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.J^hananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Ranlela,(rVdvocateslor respondentin appeals filed by UOl) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. r<e,spo]idents Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar,Sen/orAdi/ocatewitr, Mr.Sanjay Pathak,Mr.MohitraaJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain." Ms.K.Kaunnidi-Kiiiin,Advocatesfo.(;].AC/LJOI Mr.AjayVeniia, .Vls.BeenashaAvSorii. Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr S.K.Sethi,Mr.Pav>/anMathun Mr.Kunal Sharma, Ad\'ocaie for.DDA !..A..APP.4L:/2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections).LA APP <h'>POO(^- lA..^i'P.4«/2008;LA.AP1^688/2008,& CA4.No.5990/20K)'rCross-Obieclion'M- <^'M-No.433/2009(Cross-vObJections);LA.APP.7yi'/20(}8 Ci\lNo.5i0,^009 (Cross-Obiections): LA.APP.768/200R; r.A.APP.77()/20n8; Ko, nyv;;00«&connfictedAppnalsof Villagi';Bharihyl iA.Anp. No. /94/?()aeS. corinurl.edAppo-jl.":ofVillaj^t;Biiwiiijn IA.Anp. in/?niOii conncandAppealsof Viilafic:Pochanpiir PiiRl' I oi 73 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Gross-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.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008- & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); "LA.APP.,959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & ^ CM.No.S 19/2009 (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. 1046/2008; LA.APP. 1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008; • LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; 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. 1557/201 1 . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0bjections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; 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.l 108/2008 & CM.No;3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 109/2008; 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 1L5/'20()8; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; [.A.APP.l 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections);, LA.APP.1133/2008;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.l 156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP; 1158/2008 & CM.No.7774,/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l16172008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.l173/2008; LA.APP.l175/2008; LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.1179/2008;LA.APP.l181/2008; . LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections); l.A.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.1185/2008; LA.APP.1186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 lA.App. No. n95/7.008 & connoctHdAppeaLsofVillageBharthal • . LA.App. No. 29/1/2010& corinectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l.A.App.No. .Ul/.mlo&connecteflAppeal,sof VillagePochaiiDur' ' Page2of 23 % (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objeotions); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008;-LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA:APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-ObJections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008 L.A.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APPJ4/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; . LA.APP.121/2009; • LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP,210/2009

1.A.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.224./2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; l.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; l.A.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; i.A.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009.; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & & CM.No. 970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA. APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245,/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; I,A.APP.295/2009; LA.AP?.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; l.A.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA,APP.246/2009; LA.APP.3 05/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.481/2009; U^-APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009; LA.APP.567/20.09; LA.APP.48/2010; LA.APP. 1176/2008; (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. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,-Delhi) (GRID-B) ... Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN), • DBVENDHRKUMAR ....Appellant Ihrough: .Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh l,A.App. No 119'.i/200li& coiinectGdAppealsofVillage Bharthal i,A,App.No, 294/2010& connHclcdAppnaLsofVillage Bijwasan l,A,App, No, 1,1.1/2010& connect(;dAppnaLsofVillage Pochanpu.' versus Advocates Mr.S.K.Soianki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2'-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) UOI & ANR

1..A.APP r.A.APP L-A.APP, LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. [.A.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.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 Fhrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forDOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Soianki 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 appealfiled by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288,/2010 . LA.APP. 296./2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 35L/2010 LA.APP. •356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010' LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No,964/2011 (C LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 • LA.APP: 54/2010 LA.APP. 55,/20]0 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP.277/2010 LA.APP.281/2010 , LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP..285/2010 LA.A.PP.289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.y\PP. 760/2010 La\.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 •LA.APP, 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 58872010 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP, 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731,/2010 LA.APP, 732,/2010 LA,APP. 764/2010 ,LA.APP.828/2010 la:APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & :ross-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo: F,10(30)96-L&.B/LA/13417dated 13,122000 the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/..002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND ; • I.A,/\pp,No. .L19r,/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthnI LA.App, No, 294//.0.10&connKtRdAppnalsof VillageBijwasan lA.App, No, nj/,?o,io&connectedAppealsof VlllaBePochanpLir ' ' ' - . l-'agt! 4 of Z9 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 J.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR)^ SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33,36 to 40.~ 44 to49, 59, 63 to71) 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 l\4r.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Naviin Swain.,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA: LA. AFP, LAAPP, LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. J.A.APP. LA.Al'P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP." l.A.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 154/2010 65/2010 .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 . 155/2010 . 209/2010 249/20'l0 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. 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. 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 5357201 1 |-A..2PP.No. U95/P.008&conn.clndAppealsof VillafieBh.rthal AApp, No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBIjwasan l-A,App,No. ]11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & - Award No. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,'Delhi)' HON'BLE MR= JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER ]. Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoUficaiionNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 75.72.20(^0,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notificaiion of it' December, 2000. under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct. !894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question., i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. -3. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the' aforesaid thi-ee 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 mock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @f=12.32 lacs per^acre for Block 'B' (withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheij-acquired lAApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppG.ls,ofVillageBharthal ' LA.App. Nn. 291/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/20.10&conntictRdAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 i appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, refcrences 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, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the prcccdents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karmitaka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag ami Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Am-.,

(2010) 13 see ? 10; Subit Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Fs. Special Tehslldar (Land Acquisition) &

(2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir.Sit and Anr, ra. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; ChindhM Fakis

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 221\ Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia tfi; Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ l (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of-Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab sf Ors., 2011

(9) SCALli 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik n-x 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.(C) No. 4143/2003' titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha i& Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer Anr vs. MJi. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 S(X] 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, iy\..App.No..119,')/^008fi connocled Appeals of VillagpSliarthal I.A.App. No.?.94/;'.0.i0&• connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan iA.App. No Ij 1/2010& connectodAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' • Page 7of29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC US] RisalSingh &'Ors. Fs, UnionofIndia& Ann, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union ofIndia and Am,, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValUyammaland Am vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority,, (2004) 10 SCC 1A5] 'Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors, Vs, Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20.11) DLr 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh ra. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & 'Am\, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs ra. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors ra. Union of India,.{1991) 11 SCC 423; LA. y\PP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar w. Union ofIndia, decided on .::6.09.2011,LA. AFP. No.59/200/ titled as Bed Ram ra. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BkuleRam vs. UnionofIndia,im)

(170)DLT371. •6. On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the a:quired agricultural land has to be fn-st understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the develop time and the same cannotbe-limitedto the near iliturealone. 7^ It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage ra passes through the land of Village Bh )iient in the area over a period of way line of Village Biijwasan arthal, dividing it into two parts. I.e., on the easternside oftile railwayline is the tGI Airport,New Delhi I^N.App. No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBhorthal 1A.App. Mo. .29^20.10&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan • iA.App. l\io. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 8 of 7.9 J ;/ and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two : portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed.Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension ot IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere ® also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/m&pto highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras,are I. contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the I 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 agricultura! to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural,in viewofthe Notificationof24^' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been I wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. JA.App. No. IIM/XOOS& connpctedAppfialsofVillage Bharthal • iA:App.,No.294/7,010&corineclodAppealsofViliagG Bijvv/asan . . LA:App. No. ii]/;:010&connectodAppeal,';ofVillagePochanpur r / Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ore, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Vdho Dass vs. StateofBaryana& Ors., 20]0(9)'SCALE 41 holding that tlie potential of the acquired land must be adjudged .keepingmview the developmentin the ai-ea over aperiodof time and the same cannot be limited to a near ftiture alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it would not mean thatthere is no buildingpotentiality^

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,leanred counsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanptirto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be throwi out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued becauseof any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjamMoluDessai vs. Stateoff.oa '•ndAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplai.oughtto be taken as representingthe market price of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsrelied upon by the'appellants are the comparable'sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtiiponthe minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought bv Mr.R.Godai-a.learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe I& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Government for allotmentof alternate plots in the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand poientialityof the acquired land,'determinationof its market value is PP MC.UJ/.C.10&connnctedAppaalsofV[|laB,Pochanpur PagH 10 of 29 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. 12, In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited 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.J0.2002 being flaw^ed 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 account for the faci that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section-5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovermnentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the laM^ laid down by various decisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(3) SCC 661. I d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe land underacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereas asper the law established by the Hon'ble.Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land-AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'hle Suprem.e Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigher rate shouldnot be disregardedin l.A.A|)p.No. 119V2008 & connRcUidAppnalsofVillageBharlha! l.A.App. No. 2!M/2010& connectndAppnalsofVillageliijwasan LA.App. Mo. 111/2010&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pi e11 fjg case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai v^. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales titans actions should , be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land, is much higher than 15 lac per 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 impugned judgment • rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide' Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land, use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for la.nd use change show that in future land, can be subjected to residential, commercial and other pennissible uses. It is also pertinent to m.ention that the appellantleadevidencein. respectofthe 74"' amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemeda 'm.un.icipala.rea and the municipalCounsellor was elected from, 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 V5. Union of India and refusedto considerthefact thai the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpay for the subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 ' had also l-A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 291/ZOlO&connectedAppealsofVillage Bliwa.san LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur of 29 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre~determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into ciccountthe possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of }>yvarka Phase

¶11It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality ofthe said land. In Sangunthala v, Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held,that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for 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 bv the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and otlicrs'ofLA. App. No. j47/2009,tiie factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof !.A.App.No. .1195/2008&connRcledAppealsof VillageBharthal I.A.App.No. 294/2010&connecledAppealsof VlllagBBijwasan IV\.App.No. 111/2010&connoctPclAppealsof Villafjepochanpur " ' • urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Makesh Battatray Thirthkar vs. State • ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major Genera!)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference-Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation icflcctingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence lor determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpai& 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 SusMl.Kumarvs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in piice in ashortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal l-A.App. No. 29/1/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillageBijwasan I.A,App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofViilapcPochanpur ' • , I'agfi 14 of 29 % and the purchaseras no prudentperson having laiowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendmthe marketwouldpay suchahigherpay 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-DetermincdRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SmhilKumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerncd,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-' objectorsthat the same has already been factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as iiV Smhil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted - thatthereis no scopefor fiirtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RclcrcnccCourtwhiletakinginto considerationtlie appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross^. objectionsto the aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissionsadvanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe imputedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparablelandis the pricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling .• pp. No. 1...1/2010&conn.ctod-Appealsof VillagaPochanpur PagGl5of.z,3 •/ seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what, has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands leiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass ra. State of Haryiina .dS Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or vdlage which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because oj its explosivepopidation; •

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

(in) possibilityof obtainingM>ater and electricsupplyfor occupants ofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acqidredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developed residential extensions in thevicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of.educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding. areas of the acquired land which m.ay become availableto the occupiersof buildings,if builton the acquired land; and I

(vii) lands aroundthe acquired,landor the acquiredland itself being in dem.and for building purposes, to specif; a few. "

¶18The potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. For the said puiposc, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for lA.Apf).No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal . LA.App. IMo, JmpaiQ&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App.No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' / ^ / which the lands were sought to be acquired,but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination . of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscould not be a groundto discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsrelied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects,,there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the,ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State vWio has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto Vvith advantage,

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra),while takingnote of the 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. T'he pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoiu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App, No. 11.35/2008& connectedAppnalsofVillage Bharthal IA.App. Mo. 291/2010& connectcdAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/201.0&conneded Appealsof 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 bandMndth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But M'here 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:. "

¶2211 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 . follows:- , "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between 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. "

23.- Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in OH and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(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 d.evelopm.entin the area, a.nd the demand for land in the area. In rural' areas unless there is any prospect of developm'entin the vicinity; increase in prices 'would be slow, steady and grad.ual,withoutanysuddenspurts orjumps. lA.App. No. :i95/^008 & connnctedAppp.alsofVillagGBharlliai i.A.App. No. 294/2010& conncctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. Mo. Ul/20iaa connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur / On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid, development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any 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 1.5%) per annum, the corresponding increases in. rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5%) to 7.5%oper annum. 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 specifi.c 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 in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contem.poraneoussale .transactions or acquisitions 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 thai it may be unsafe, even if it relates to ci neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only a few years, may become,unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe m.arket value of a land acquired.,in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or I.A.App..No. 1.195/2008Si co.nnfictnciAppealsofVillageBhartha! lA.Apo. No. 294/2010&connnctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan lA.App No. 11.1/2010&connGctodAppeaLsofVillagePochanp'ir u •7 acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the >ate' of annual : increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom-the ; likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin . • prices ot suddenspurtsinprices affectingthe verystandard ofincrease. " I

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Hmyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative-salesmethods;What was said by the Apex Court in liSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different sitiiationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt thai: determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshould be avoided and.a uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthesame 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 SM^amiSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price . which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. ; '

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which • are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SyvamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of Ihc landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required 10 be answered. Evidently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds -V lAApp. No. 1.1,95/2008&conriGctGdAppealsof VillageBharthal . • I.A./\pp,No. 294/20.10&cohnectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan : 1.A.APP. No, .1:11/2010&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 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~l/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 purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these, lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siiigh w. Union of India, decided on

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

¶27. h-i 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 acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing W.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur y 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 (]ix.PW-]/4 to Iix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (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,200'0, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National liighway - 8 and because, vide Sale Deed (Itx.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 higl^ price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in qucsUon.

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

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P, Ram Reddyand Ors. R Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "/i. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvahie ofthe acquiredlandwith . buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood I.A.App. Mo. liyr)/2008& connected.AppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/20.10& connpcVedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App.No. 1.1.1/20.T0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur / orwhetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in 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 M'hich theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where 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, with reference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by 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 land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue,for such buildingpotentiality arises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land, indicatingthai there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even if formed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the diffieultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringtlie agriculturallands,developingthe same,-and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Led Chand (Supia),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chand (Supra),acoordinateBench 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 lA.App.No.,1.1'J:,/2008&conn(!clc!dAppealsof VillagoBharthal l-A,App.No. 291/20.10&connoclndAppealsof VillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/20.1.0&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightl}'not adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe 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 other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalation at the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,if the gap is of only of a few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the •gap betweenthe 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 by providing appropriate LA.App. No, nyb/2008& connnctGdAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connycUidAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ^24 of 29 escalationoverthe marlcetvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is, unwaiTanted as a coordinatebench of this Court in Smhil.Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Smhil Kumar (Supra), 1 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 SiishilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum.In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.-

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice ofthe agriculturalland inDelhi, by the ReferenceCourt IS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market val.ue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date offixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1=' April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause'theacquiredland had ceased to he an agriculturalland by virtue of Nofificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ol the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto I.A.App. No. ],19,V2d08&connectGdAppenisof VillageBharthiil 1/^.App.No, iwpmo &. conncctodAppealsof VillageBijwasan W.App. No. Ml,'2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • Page IS of 29 presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectoftlicre beingany developmentin and around the acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale,exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofdie saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record tliat till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been mcrcasemprice due to higherdemand, on accountof potentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid their hands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallclia(Ex.PW-l/ll)without leading any evidence to establishthat die qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarso{Radha Swami Salsang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalklia(hx.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Sanialkha (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 aforc-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryam Slate IndustrialDevelopmentCorpornUm (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agi-ieulturalland in • Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the 6ct that there is agap between what A./^PP. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur •. / ]• would be cxpected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as-inSushi! Kumar (Supra)and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquired lands in question, landing of the ReferenceCourtin matterof VillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation ol the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out frora the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectof higherpotentialityof the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passing through Village [3harthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,PartI and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity ol the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof this Court, on accountof aioresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,cert:ainly assume higher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof DwarkaPhase-I. What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account ofthe higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the No. 1195/2008& connHCtedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijvi/asan LA.App. No;111/2.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur p ^ ^ settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court mMirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- ' "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possihihtyof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildmgsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion woidd be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a ' ivii c.ingpoteniialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnessc<ui never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesmo to treatthem with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bhartlial and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in SMshil Kumar(Supra).1am inclinedto grant \0% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahiglierbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question. 40, Accordingly,these appeals mx partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe mai'ketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bhaithaland Village Biiwasair.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith the appellamsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof ' PP ^'° -"/20.10& connectedAppGafsofVillagePochanpur Page 2S of 29 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these •three villagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^^rforthe Catcgoi7 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-perbigha'forthe Category lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder V5. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi v\ hich periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar Gcnei-al ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. ' • (SUNILGAUR) JUDGE January 06, 2012 pkb y <1 / • , -?• ! ,J. ••••, I I ' lAApp. No. 1135/2008&connncl.dAppealsofVillageBharthal A.App. No, 291/2010&connc!cledAppealsof VillageBIjwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pago 29 of 29 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mi-.AmitMaan,MrJaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates •Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate., Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mi-.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentinappealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr .R.S.Tomar. IP Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus . UNION OF INDIA& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mj-.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalShaniiaand Mi-.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORD^ER %

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'' January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice .A.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 & i ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor tlie appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the ai-oresaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per biglw', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants:Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthattliereferenceto 'perbigha'inparagraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe.carried.oiitforthwitli..- In vjew of-the aforesaid,this appHcationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb JUDGE LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

r- =!= % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 506/2009 UNION OF INDIA Through: Reserved on: November , 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA versus HUKAM CHAND Through: Respondent 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 Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, 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, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR