Union of India v. Ram Kala & Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. fStfT^TtCAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06,2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. ,.•"4 f % OF DELB[I AT NB:W DELHI (GRID-A) Reserved on: NovemberIS. 21111 Pronounced on; January 06, 2012 LA.APP.l195/2008(VILLAGE-BHAMTHAL) RANBJRSHARJ\4A Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Sjnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms,Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohl as. Advocate. Mr.Raghiivinder GoLlara,Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.KTloutray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RaJesh Yadav. Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhosla, and Mr.Dhauanjay Mehlawal, Advocates Mr.H.S. R.auiela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandcep Thakhur., Advocate Mr.Atiil Tripathi, .Advocate, Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautehi,(.r\dvocateslor respondentin appe\alsfiled by (JOI) versus UNION ()]• INDIA & ANR. Respoiidents Throufc-h; Mr.SanjayPoddav,SeniorAdA'ocate'wifbMr.Saajay Pathak,Mr.Molutrao.Jadha\-and Ms.Navimovvain/ Ms.K.KaunnidiKiran. Advocatesfor LAC/UOl Mr.AJayVern?a,Ms,BecnashavvSorii, Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr S.K.Sethi,Mi-.Pav/anMathiir,Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocaie for [)[)A l.A.AP.p.412/2008& CM.No,4096/200-S ('Cross-Objections),f APP '•l-S27''00H-LA.APP.453/2008;LA.APl^688/20()8& CM.Mo.5990/20K)'(Cross-Obiections);- i.A.APJ'.()97/2008& OM.No.433,/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-01-jection.s): L\.APP.768/200R; r.A.APP.770/2U08-In-App. Ko. i.l,y:5/;:008&connocledAppHiiiscif Viliagi';Bhar!.li:jl i-VAop. No. ;'94/?U:iO&corinuri.cdAppc.-:jlsof Village?BijwiiidR IA.Anp. i\i". l,i;i./vfno&connoci'.^ciAppealsof Viilaf>(..l-ochanpur Paf:c' I. of 23 // LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & . CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.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.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & . CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP,993/2008;LA;APP.1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008; LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.i048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l049/2008•& CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM:.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0biec.tions); 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-Obiections); 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.r 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP.l 1,10/2008 & 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] 13/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1115/20()8; LA.APP. 1116/2008; LA.APP. 1121/2008; LA.APP.l 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); J,A.APP.l130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.Np.566/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1140/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.1158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.1166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.l170/2008; LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.1173/2008; LA.APP.1175/2008;LA.APP.1178/2008; LA.APP.117.9/2008;LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933./2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP.II86/2008& CM,No.7013/2009 r I.A.App, No. 3195/?.008& connnctedAppeal.sofVillageBharthiil LA App. No. J.91/7.010& connGClfidAppealsofVillage Bijvvasan l.A.App.No. .1.1..1./.iniO& connRctGclAppeal.sof Village PochariDur' ' Page;'of29 % (Cross-Objections); 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.1198/2O08& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2()08; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 l.A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; CM.No.953/201: LA.APP.121/2009 LA. APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190,/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA. APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.211/2009; ].A.APP;224/2009; (Cross-0 bjecti0ns); LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.Al'P.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; l.A.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; I.A.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP,572/2009; LA,APP.404/2010; i. A. APP. 1177/2008: LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA,APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & 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; LA.APP. 1201./2008; LA.APP.295/2009 LA.AP?.447,.'2009 LA,APP.480/2009 LA, APP,491/2009 LA,APP.503/2009 LA,APP,509/200^ LA.APP.513/2009 LA. APP,45/2010 LA,APP;113 8/2008 LA,APP,231/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 135/2009 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 L A, APP.3 05/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA, APP,481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APE^Il£/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 T»rp-P3F772rK)^ LA.APP,48/2010 .A, 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 L,and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on; December

¶0820!! Pronounced on: January 06. 20] 2 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN), • DliVENlJERKUMAR Appellant Through: .M;-,R,S,'romar,Mr.VirendraSingh iy\.App, i\io 1195/2008 & coiineclpd Appealsof Village Bharlhal ',A,App,No. 294/2010& connuctodAppealsofVillage Bijwasiiri I.A.App No. .1.11/7.010& connectedAppnal.sofVillage Pochanpu.' /3 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routra}/,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for LIOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Romray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,71 & 72 in appealfiled by UOl Mr.BajikeyBihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates, for DDA. LA-.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP, 53/2010 r.A.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221./2010 LA.APP, 242/2010 LA.APP, 24672010 LA.APP;282/2010 LA,APP. 283/2010 LA.APP, 287/2010 LA,APP. 288,/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296./2010 LA,A.PP,346/2010 LA,APP. 347/2010 I.A.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 35].'2010 LA.APP, 354/2010 LA.APP.'356/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. I-A.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 I.-A.APP.405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 I.A.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 •LA.APP: 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP.286/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP,75/2010& C,M.No,964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP, 51/2010 LA,APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP.277/2010 LA.APP.281/2010 , LA.APP, 284/2010 LA,y\PP, 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.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP, 359/2010 LA,APP, 362/2010 LA,APP, 363/2010 • L.A.APP.407/2010 LA.APP. 408/20] 0 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 722,/20]0 I.A.APP. 725/2010 I,A.A.PP, 726/2010 Ly\,/\.PP. 731./2010 LA.APP. 732./2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & oss-objections) (Relating to NotificafionNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12,2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi). AND lA.App. .No ,l.m.V2008& connectcidAppealsof Village BharthnI LA.App. No. zg/i/zOlO&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. UJ/.W10& conneclodAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' ' • .l-;iBe4of^9 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December ]R. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 I.A.APP. 111/2010 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, 36to 40.' 44 to 49,59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advoccitefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appelhint in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.NavIin Swain.,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA, LA. AFP L A.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. •LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 111/2010 . 160/2010 .228/2010 .254/2010 .292/2010 . 307/2010 . 395/2010 420/2010

466./2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .154/2010 . 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 4 8572011 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,.A,PP. LA../VPP. 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 129/201! 521/2011 526/2011 591/201 1 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 535/201 1 LA.App. No. l.l,95/?.008&conncjclpdAppealsof VillafieBharthal Lj\,App,No, 294/2010&connGctfidAppealsof VillageBijwasan lAApp.No ],1,1/2010& conn.clnclAppealsof Village!Pochanpur. (Relating to' Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,'i:)clhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL ORDER '

06.01.2012 1• Sinct, the giounds on which enhancenientofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, thereforewith the consent of learned counsel for the parties presentat the healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotijicalionNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/IA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating ^ - to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and 1ochanpui aie l:)eingdisposedofby this commonorder. Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'l^^varkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land A.cquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block eomprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. i. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respor.dcntsvide 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' (ievel-field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Oissatisfiedwith tiie assessmentofmarketvalue oftheiracquired LA.App. No. 1195/J008&connectedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal I.A.App. Nn, Z9'i/?.01O&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VlllaRePochanpur . • IC 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, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upoii the prcccdents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karmitaka Homing Board Land Acquisition Officer, Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa

(2010) 13 sec 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunihala

(Dead) through LRs. Fs'. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 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 ISand (since deceased) through LRs vs.-Union of India & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State ofJIaryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALlt 41; Chakas vs. State-of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCAIJ'i 362; Avinash Bhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 SCC 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 Sabhd Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 S(X] 714; Thakarsihhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, iy\..App. No,.1.19!)/Z008& conru;r.U;dAppnalsof Village Bhartha'i ;.A.App. No. 7.9't/?.010 & conneclod Appnals of VlllaBC! Bijwasan iA.App. No 1j1/2010 & connnclcdAppealsofVillagfif'ochappur Pago 7of29 •-f Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmejttCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175;MsaiSingh& Ors. UnionofIndia& Anr,, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chmtdvs, \jmon of India and Anr,, (2009) 15 SCC 769; Genera] Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPaid and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Maltesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Fs, Union ofIndia &. Anr, ^ 176(201]) DLl 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)hy LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

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

(170)DLT371.

¶0On 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 situationoi the acquiredagriculturalland has to be fu-st understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developiiientin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedt(j the near lirturegilone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S/romar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage ra: Iway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividing it into two parts,

1.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. Wo. 1195/2008&coiinKclcdAppealsof VillageBharthal IA.App. No. 2y/|/2010&connpclndAppoalsof Village[Jijwsssn lA.App, IMG. 111/20.10&conn(!cU!dAppealsof VillagrPochynpi,^ Page 8 of 7.9 '--f and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters Avide starting from NIi-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) Soutli Eastern side, where developedFarm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat I Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side ot Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras Avere also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. AttentionAvas drawn to the aks jz^raj/mapto highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally 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 Ixom agricultura! to residential/ ,commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24'" October,1994,

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Roiit,learned counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. IA./\pp. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppnalsofVillage Bharllial lA AppjMo. 29/1/7.010&connuclGdAppGalsof VillafieBijwasan . LA.App. No. connnclodAppealsof VillaBPPochanpur • Page 9 of 2.3 t1 ReMi&Ors. vs. LundAcquisitionOfficer,BydembmlAOn, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex eourt in its later decisionin Vdho Dcm vs. StateofBaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SeALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area overaperiodoftime and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no buiidingpotentiahty. •10. Reliancewas placed by iVIr.B.D.Shanna,learned counsel for the appellantsL.pon the seven Sale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesattd as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluDessai vs. Stateoffioa "•«IAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCottituponthe minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquired land was sought bv lVfr.R.C;odara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& . DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate p'<>'= mthe year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is . Pr NC.UJ/.C10&connt;cledAppMl5of Village,Pochartpur pur PygolOofza sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phasc-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited of,LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the acknoyvledgement on the part of the respondent about the A\mrd No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.J0.2002 being fl.aM>ed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. ft (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) h) Does not accountfar 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 GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid. down by various decisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ^ SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)see661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining the value ofthe land underacquisition. e) Does not deal with di.sparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereas asper the law establishedby the Hon'bleSuprem.e Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld, that Sale Deedshoyvinghigher rate shouldnot be disregardedin 17\.App.No. 119^2008& c;)nnt!ci.GdAppc;al.sofVillageBharthal I.A.App, No. 2.94/2010&connectedAppoaisofVillaficBijwa.san LA.App.Mc..1,11/2010&con.necli^dAppealsof VillagePoclianpur p., ^ case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be .considered while adjudicating upon 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 v,y. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rejiised to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notifi-cationof 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 land use change show that in future land, can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible, uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectof the 74"' amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.j". 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was I amended and the area where the land is situated, was • • deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor ^ was elected from there.. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR. Suprem.e Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of India and refusedto considerthe fact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpay for, the subject la.nd.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also W.App, No. 1195/2008& connKctedAppeaLsofVillageaharthal LA,App. No. 291/7.010& connuctedAppealsofVillage Biiwasjin LA.App. No. 111/2010&connetlfidAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pago 12 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 valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of iy\varka Phase II: It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was held,that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the propei^ty 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 by 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 others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the tactual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsofthis appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsofthe . . • : otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14-Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnaridYadav, Advocatethat the effectof , <.A.App. Mo. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal W,App. IMo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagGBijwassn • l-A.App. [Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppeal.^of VillagePochanpiir ' ' • ' urbanizationof the lands in the Villages in question,i.e.,'the change in land use has been consideredin Makesh DattatrayThirthkarvs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union of India Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Dctermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation icflcctingjast, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthat thoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut 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 tlie RefeienceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin ra. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chaml vs. Union .

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Susmiliumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in piice in a shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 11U5/Z008&connsctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal 1-A.App. No. 2.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan IV\.App. No. ni/?.oio&connectedAppealsof VlllapoPochanpur " , , f-,n ^ rago 14 01 2.9 \ and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendmthe marlcetwouldpay 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 ratcs/Pre-DetcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis Courtin SushilKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialilyof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimum indicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per aojium, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court,.as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted . that thereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the RclcrenccCourtwhiletakinginto considerationtlie appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves lo be broughtin line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. '7. After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closepemsalofthe impugnedjudgmem,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableImidis the pricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling l.A.App.NaU9;i/2Q08&connoct.ciAppealsof VillageBharthal -A.App,No. m/20W&conneclGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan ^•App. No. n.l/^010&conneaedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 15 of .?.3 ty 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 reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haiyana & Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village, which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation;

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

(lii) possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants of buildingsto beput up on thai land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using theacquired landfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developed residential extensions in the vicinityor 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 may becom.e available to the occupiersof buildings,if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquired,landor the acquiredland Itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few. "

¶18I'he potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large number of factors. I'or the said puipose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. No. 119^/2008& conneclpdAppeiilsofVillage Bharthal lA.App. No. ?.94/7.O10& connoctedAppealsofVillage BljwasDn LA.App. No. 1,11/20.10&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur of 29 whicli the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Count 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-exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

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

¶714The legal propositionwhich emergesfrom the decisionsrelied upon I on behall of the appellantsis 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 who has acquired the agricultural land 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 vicinit}' of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was im.proper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- IA.App. No. 11.S5/200S&conrieci.RdAppealsofVillageBharlhal lA.App, No. ?.f.M/7X'10& conriGctodAppciaisofViliagn Bijwasan •kA.App. I\io, .l.l.lp.010& connnctcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur "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, Mn.ll be considered. Where hoM'ever 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 two sales are m.arkedly different, it. can only lead to an infermce that they are with re:ference 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), v\diich are as . follows:- "// is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken,place between a. willing vendee and. the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. fOTVGQ (Supra), are as under;- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for development in ' the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices' would be slow, steady, and grad.ual,withouta.nysuddenspurts orjumps: I.A.App. No, ]19LVi'008& c0nn(;!cteclAppsalsofVillageBharllial i-A.App. No. ?.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasari 1-A.App:No. i: 1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePor.tianpur On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where-the demandfor 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 M>here 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 cf 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 urhan/semi-urban areas is about 10%o 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 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 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 determiningthe market value by providing 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 contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonably safe yvhere the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour to-fiveyears. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a 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 vcdue of a land aaquired^in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or LA.App. No. i,19:;/20Dg& connficlndAppealsofVillage Bhartha! ' lA.Apo. No. 2.91/20.10& connnctfidAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.ApD No. .11,1/2010&connectadAppealsof VillagePocharipur acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom, the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease. "

¶24This Courtis mindfuloftlie dictum ofthe Apex Co.urt in Sfate IndustrialDevelopmesitCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say foi forming of a. residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredimderthe same notification." -5. Undisputedly, 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 Swa.miSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acrc.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which arc basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha Swam.iSatsang Beas in respectof the compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 BiswassituatedmVillagePochanpurrellectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds I.A.App, No, 1.1.95/2008&connectndAppealsof VillageBharlhal LA.App. No, 2!;4/20.10&. connecUidAppealsof VillagG Bijwasan lA.App. No, l:lV20:0& connc!Ct(!dAppealsof VillsgpPocha.npur ' ' ' (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ^52 ]acs to ?62 iacs 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.Therelore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee,of these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcl.iaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, dien it could have been elicited Irom 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 Swaini 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. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on" 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siiigh vs. Union of India, decided on

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

¶27In the instantmatters, thougli the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuch priorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence - that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing I.A.App. No. 1.195/2008&connoctedAppealsofViilagG Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoclianpuf market price of tlie 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 (]!^x.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,200i0, 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 ^ (lix.PW-1/11)vendorhad soldnot onlythe landbut the structurethereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemphir cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29l.eft 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 Prc-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.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas F. Ram Reddy and Ors, V, Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. I/owever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determmationof the marketyahie of the acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a yvell developed-layoutin the neighborhood IA.App. Mo. 1195/2008& connectfidAppfi;ilsofVillage liharthal l.A.App. No. 294/201.0& conncctedAppealsofVillage Bljwa.san lA.App. Mo. 1.1,1/?.0,10&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur 22 of 29 5?/ oryvhetherit he the determinaticmofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland, 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 which 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 biuldingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then wha.t could,be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired,land with re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was putand increaseits value-by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in -that regard. A small percenta.'^e 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 buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the accjuiredland, indicating that there M'as no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifform.ed in the acquired land. " j 1. In view of the dilficultiesin adoptionol rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai -Chand (Supia),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DetcrminedRates 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. Mo..ll<j,v?.008&connc^clndAppealsof VillageBhartlial LA.App. Nq. ?91/J0J.0&connpctcdAppualsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. Mo. lUpOW&connectedAppGal.sof VillagePoclianpur the undeveloped acquired iands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court lias rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32. Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of die land in questionwhile takinginto 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 La! Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only whei:; 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 ot only of a few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ot sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode, of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 119Li/2008& connoc'lodAppealsofVillagR Bharthal LA.Atip. No. 294/2010& connHctadAppealsofVillage Bijwa.san LA.App, (Mo. 111/2010&connr.ct(!dAppealsof VillagePochanpur p^g,, of 29 -3 cscaJationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a cooidinatebenoh of this Court in SiishilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi!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 Sushil Kumar (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 in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the ReferenceC-ourt from the date of fixationol the m.inimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Government-w.e.f1'' April, 2000 till the date of NotiJicationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not. . • 36, Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertainmg to the Notification in question has been assailed by tlie learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban, it is true thatvide,aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use oi the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto I.A.App. No. :i95/2(jG8&connectedApppjilsof Villago;Bharlhni lV\.App.No. .^,94/2010&. connectedAppeslsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. l,l..l,/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vita! aspectof there 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 said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rathei, it emerges from ,the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been mci-casemprice due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on other sale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1.1)without leadmg any evidence to • establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(bx.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot he 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 IndimriarDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supia),uniform,rate 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,lakmg note of the fact that there is agap between what 'AApp, No, 1195/2098&connoctedAppealsnf VillageBharthal • • • ^ "^"""sctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA App. ^0. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 26 of IB would be expected 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 in Sushi! 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 Coml in the matters pertaining to -Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasari has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. I'inding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of tliere being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out frora the evidenceon record.But I fmd 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 Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide,road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof this Court, on accountof atoresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainIv assumehigher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof DwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the i.A,App. No. 1.1.9Ii/2008& connGctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 1.11/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur settled legal position aptly higlilighted by the Apext Court in Minn NauslterwmtKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- ••When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buddingsin the immediateor nearfvliire. such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to 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 exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesmo to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counte,--parts,i.e.. appollams of Village Bhartlial and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in SmUl Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpoteniialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand above the marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto VillageBharthal and Village Biiwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof •A.App. No. .1..1..1/2010&competedAppMl,ofVillagePochanpur Pafje 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/- the Cdlcgoiy A land and @?14,69,600/-per bi^ha'for the Category lands in question. aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siaiutorybeneiitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judginenl reported ia Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,except for the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, lor uhich periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswould be entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶421he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar (jcncral ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb •A./\pp. No. .U95/2008&connnctedAppealsof Village;Bharthai lA.App. IMo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagnBijwasan tA.App. No. l.n/2010&connnctedAppealsof VillagePochanpur JUBGE -'•/r -v / I. i,-, /-vie • • '"i ru- /' ri'T THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI r LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SIIARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.>Jegiand Mr.H.S.Ra.utela, Advocate Mi-.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin'Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. COR4M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. Appi. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No,1195/2008 Page 1 ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen given to remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointedout by the respondentin tlie decision of 6" Januaiy, 2012 is that in paragraph no; 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,tliis applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary con-ectionsbe carriedout forthwith. ' In view ofthe aforesaid,this apphcationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 plcb LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 2 JUD(GE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 510/2009 Reserved on: November . 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Tlirough: 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 Shanna, Advocate for DDA versus RAM K.\LA & ORS. Respondent Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita 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