Union of India v. Ajit Singh & Ors

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of india & Anr.'. R) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb 0-/0 . U,U . Jv IN T!TE HIGEI COURT OF DELHi AT NEW DELHI Ic!zic.cd on:IanuaiO62O/2

(GRJI)-A) I.A.APP.1 195/2008 (VILLA(;E... BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA Appellant through: Mr.B.SMaan, Mr,Arnit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jitjn Tewathja, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvin'ier Gndara Advocate Mr.NS.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr. S .K .Rou and Mr.B .K ,Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari. Advocates rv1r. panka Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesi Yndav. Mr..Deepak K.hos1a Mr.Sarnit Khosla and N4rDhanalija\' 1\4ehla\vat. dvocates iVIr,H .S. R.auteia, i'\dvocate Mr.I.S..Dahiya. Advocate Mr.Sandecj Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul J'ripathi, Advocate, Mr.N.S.Negi and MrJl.S.Rauie!a. (Advocates for respondeni. in. appeals filed by UOJ) versus tNION 01' ENJ)IA & ANR. Rcspondcni i hrouh: Mr.Sanjav Poddar, Senor Advocate with /ft.Sao Pathak Mr Muhitrae dh in I M n ulH Ms K \auniudi R oa to' I 7C Mr..Ajav Verma, Ms.E3eenashaw SouL Mr,Mukcsb Kumar Mr ?JK Scthj., IVft.Pawan Mathur. Mr.Kunaj Sharnja. Advocate .DDA .A Pi 1 ::.2oo g &. (M.No4Qs/C (C ross-Ohjcctji)ns) J/A.APP, 52/2O08: A \PP4S, )()8; LA.APP.588/7008 (Th1. Nc.5Q90/20 I U (Cross 0hicccpi) Ai 'P.(0 7/2008 & CM.No.4 'U0 .rs-.Qhjceto?s) LA.AP p,7() I 'p008 & N 5 t )'2O0 (Cmss-0iecU .•; \ A PP 76"20; o. & connULtd of \;1lgU BharUojl '\co N. 294/21)C orjied Appc .jJ; VI !WRfl A/\pp \U. Ii .01)10 & ( Oni' \pp oO/ilIp( IOcrnjr Pure 1 29 . 1) LA.APP.771 /2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APR772/2008; LAAPP.773/2008 & CM.No.3 835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.61 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.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; LAAPP798/2008 & CM.No.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.93 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA APP. 805/2008 LA.APP. 806/2008; LA.APP. 813/2008 & CM.No.1 795/2009 (Cross-ObjectionsL LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.8 1 8/2008; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.83.312008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/201 1. (Cross-(bjections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.9011'2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 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); I .A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008;

1.A.APP. 047/2008;LA.APP. I 048/2008& CM.No.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 049/2008 & CM.No.420;2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 050i'2008; LA.APP. 1 05 ii'2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; IA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.41 6/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA,API. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & CM.No.752/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No. 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(Cross-Ohjeetions); IA. APP. 1060/2008 ;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & c.M.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); EA.APP. 1 073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP. 1 081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1086!2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 087/2008& CM.No.61 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.APP. 1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2.008; TA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Gross-Objections);LAAPP.1 108/008 & CM.No3839/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1 109/2008: LA.APP. 1110/2008 & CM.No,3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.•] 111/2008; LA.APP.1 112/2008 & CM.....3831/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA APP. 1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1115/2008;. LA.APP.1 ii 6/2008; LA.APP. 1121/2008; LA.AP.1. 1126/2008; LA.APP. 1129/200% & CM.. No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.1 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); I,,A.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP. 1135/2008 & CM,No.7442/2.009 (Cross-Objections); I.A.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No.17,283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA..APP. 1.140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; 1.A.APP. 1157.2008; LA.APP. 1158/2008 & CM.No.7774!2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 159/2008; LA.APP.1 161/2008; L.A.APP.1 I 66/2008; LA.APP. 1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1 168/2008; i..i\.APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP.] 1 71/2008; LA.APP. 11 72/2008; LA..AP. 1] 73/2008; i...A.APP. 11 75/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP. 1179/2008; L!\..APP. 1181/2008; [A.APP. 1182/2008; LA.APP. 11 83/2008& .CM.No.6933 !2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 11 84i'2008; LA.APP. 11 8 5/2008; LA.APP. ii 86/2008& CM.No.701 3./2009 A.App. No 195/2008 l :onnected Appeals of Village 8harthl l.A Ape. No. 29!A/2010 & conoected Appeals of Village Bijwasan . . . l.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connectea AppeaR of Village Pochaiiur Page 2 o29 . YLI (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008; LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.API. 1194/2008; LA.APP. ii 95/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; LA.APP. 11 98/2008& 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. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1241/2008& CM.No.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008; I 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.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA. APP.73/2009 & CMNo.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74!2009; 1 A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/201 I (Cross-Objections); J.A.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009: LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009;

1.A.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009; I A.APP. 1 40i'2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; S LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009: LA.APP.1 90/2009; LA.APP. 19 1/2009; ii\.APP 1 97/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; I.A.APP.201/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009: LA. APP.208/2009 & CMNo.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2 10/2009 & CM.No.970/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LA..APP.2 11/2009; LA.APP220!2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009;

1.AAPP.224/2009; LA.APP.227!2009; LA.A.PP.230!2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24 1/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009; I A.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; iA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; I A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP,437/2009; LA.APP.447,'2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP466/2009; LA.APP480/2009; LA.APP.48 1/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; L/\.APP.494/'2009; LA.APP495/2009; (LA.APP.503/2009; tLA.APP506/2009; 1 .A.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; T..C,L,9TTJ.A:.APP.51 0/2009; LA.APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP,5 12/2009; .LA.APP,5 13/2009: LA.APP567/2009: LA.APP.572/2009; LA.API. 1 5/201 0; LA.APP.45/201 0; LA.APP.48/201 0; 1 :A.APP.404/20] 0; LA.APP. 13/2011: LA APP. 1138/2008: LA.APP.1 176/2008; I .A.APP.1 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP23 1/2009 (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. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village I3harthal, Delhi)

(GRI1)-B) Liyej_qJ2ecernbe'rO2O1i LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BIJWASAN) I)EVENDFR KUM.AR . ....•. Appellant Through: • Mr.R,S.'.Fomar, Mr.Virendra Singh A.App. 'Jo 1i95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village i3harthal I ls.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Ap peals of Village Bijwasan A,App No. I .l.1/O1O & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu' LA.A.PP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.AFP. 100/20 10

1.A.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 360/2010

1.A.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA. APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA. APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 75/200 & :IJ . Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14. 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus TJOI & ANR . Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Pôddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanj ay Kurnar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav. and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.P,.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI, Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI .Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP.49/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/20 10 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP, 288/2010 LA..APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP, 347/2010 1.A.APP. 348/2010 LA,APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 ,LA.APP. 356/2.0l() L,A.APP.35712010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 361/201.0 LA.APP. 362/2010 LAAPP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 407/201() LA.APP. 438/20l() L.A.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA,APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 759/20.10 'i,A.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP, 286/2010 LA,.APP. 364/2010 L..A.APP. 80/20.10 L. A.APP. 99/2010 C.MNo. 964/2011 (Cros-ohjections) LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 70/201.0 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP.. 732/2010 LA.APF.. 828/2010 (Relating to Notification No. FJO(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 'dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AN1) A.Apo. No .1 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Vlage Bhartnal l.A.Ap. No. 294i2010 connected 4ppea!s of ViIage Bijwasan i\.A p p, No. 'II /2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanptr O Ii 0/ (GRID-C) /0 Reserved on. December 18 2011 nounced JanuaQ012 LA.APP. 1] l/20i0 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) Ape11ants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr. S.K,Solanl(j and Mr.SK.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20,23 to 26,29,30,33,36 to 40,44 to 49, 59. 63 to 7 1) Mr.S.13. Kurnar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) Respondents Mr.Sanjay .Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kurnar Pathak, Mr.Mohjtrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navjin Swain., Advocates for UOi/LAC Mr.Baflke\' Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kurial Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA: SEt IAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through . LA.APP, 111/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 254/2010 LA.APP. 292/2010 LA.APP. 307/2010 LA.App : 395/2010 LA APP. 420/2010 LA APP. 466/2010 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.APp. 767/2010 J.AAPP. 919/2010 LA.APP. 65'20 11 LA,App 120/2011 IA..APP. 476/2011 LA.APP 523/201 1 LA.APP . 536/2011 LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 317/2010 LA.APP. 396/2010 LA.APP. 432,2010 LA.APp. 489/2010 LA.APP. 639/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LA.APP. I 052/2010 LA.APp. 116/2011 LAAPP. 121/2011 LA,APp. 485/201.1 LA.APp. 525/2011 LA.APp. 554/201 1 LA,APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.APP. 2.49/2010 LA.APP. 261/2010 LA.APp. 305/2010 LAAPP. 392/2010 LA.APP. 397/2010 LA,APP. 433/2010 LA.App. 577','2010 LA.APp. 640/2010 LA.APp. 741/2010 LA:.App. 784/2010 LA.APP. 61/2,01.1 LAA pp. 117,'2011 LA.APP. 129/2011 LA.APP. 521/2011 LA.App. 526/2011 LA.APP. 591/2011 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP. 215/2010 LA.APP. 250/2010 LA.APP. 270/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 LA,APP. 393/2010 LA.APP. 412/2010 LA.APp. 434/2010 LA.APP. 635/2010 LA.APp. 657/2010 LA.APP. 758/2010 LA.APP. 918/2010 LAAPP. 64/2011 LA.App, 119/2011 LA.App. 429/2011 L.A.APP. 522/2011 LA.APP. 535/2(ji 1 LA.App. No. 3.1.95/2008 & connected Apeels of Village Bharthal I.A.App. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Vg Oijwasan LA.App No 111/2010 & connectEd Appeals of Village Pochanpur D . );9- (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the I.and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. .JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is • sought. by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Notification No.F. 10(3Q,)96-L& B/LA/1341 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

¶2Acquisition process for planned development of Dwarka Phase-I!' in I)elhi, commenced with the issuance of NotifIcation of 13th December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in OflC compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue. Estates including villages in question, i.e., E3harthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003 ;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation

13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field with top soil) and ), 12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acqufred l.A.App No. 1IPS/2008 & connected Appeals of ViIIap,e Bharthal l.A.App. No. 29d/2t:flo & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasan li\.App. No 111/2010 & cor.nected Appeals of Village Pochanpur * Page 6 o 29 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 (a i5.0O lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and 13.36 lacs per acre for their Block '13' land in Villages Bharthai and Bijwasan; whereas, refrences 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 Icompensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr.,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Sub/i Ram and Ors vs. Slate of Haryana and .nr.,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition,) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Sing/i and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; C'hindha Fakira Paul

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, • 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) I)RJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India & Anr., 2002 (65) I)RJ I (DB); (Jdho Dass vs. State of 'Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCA1.E 41; chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavtiji A'aik vs. State of Ma/uirashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Ilaryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Thdii Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. !vLK. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, LA.App, No. 115 /2008 & coiriected Appeals Of Village harth A.App. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Oijwasan A.App. No .112/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocharpur jt Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) I)RJ 527 (DB); La! Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; Genera! Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pale! and Anr, (2008) 14 sec 745; Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition ,) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; .Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatrap Thirthkar vs. Stite of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; • Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. V. Union of india & Anr, 176(2011) I)LT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled. as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; On, Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627; kSatJJal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 1 1 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of !ndia, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of india, decided on 07.06.20 ii; and Bhuie.Ram vs. Union. of India, 2010 (1 70) DLT 371. . 6. on the strength of the aforesaid decisions; at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan. learned' arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of' the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudged keeping in viw the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone. 7 It was Pointed out by Mr.R.Si'omar, counsel I br appellants that I)cihi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage raiva line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IGI Airport, Nev I)elhi LA App. No. I 105/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharhai IA.App. No.294/201.0 & connected Appea of VHlage Bijwasan .A.App. No. '11 1/201.0 & connected Appeals of VUlage Pochanpur Page 8 of ?.9 .

S and Oil I)epots 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-Il again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farn iJouss are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counscf for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of 1(11 Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for • establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of I)warka Phase-i and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and I)hool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II Dwarka Sub-City. /\ttention was drawn to the aks sizras/map to highlight that the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.13.S.Maan, learned counsel for the (s appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of. its location and has illegally treated the acquired•• land to he agricultural in spite of Notification of l6" October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed fi'brn agriculturai to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 24*' October, 1 994.

¶9ii was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aIbresaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court. by relying upon P. Rwna I !.App. No. 115/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA App. No. 294/20i0& connectec Appeals of Village Oijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . cj Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors,

(1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in LTd/jo Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land tO any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharja learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from 52 lacs to 62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are Overvalued hccause ol any special advantages and as pci-settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Anjani Mo/u ..Dessai v. State of Goa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the !arket price of the land which comes to 157 S lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore,. reliance placed by the Reference Court upon theminjrnum rates/circle rates for detenriining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous. 1 1. Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& 1)0 rates fixed by the Governn-jcnt and also on the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the (Jovernjuién for allotment of alternate• plots in the year 20002001 Keeping in view the locatio, situation and Potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its rnarke value is L\.App No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appea!s of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294j?OO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A App N. 11J/2C1O & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . . sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Sarnalkha 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. 1 2. In the written synopsis, appellant Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- a) 'Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Reftrred to in cross-examination of appellant dated

¶77.2007) b) l)oes nQt account tor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9. 1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years bejbre the NotfIcation under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued &v the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by virious decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the lion 'hie Supreme Court in San gunthala versus Tahsiidar, 2010(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per e.tablished law has to be Cons idred befbre ascertaining the value of the land znder acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale i)eeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'hie Supreme Court in the recent case of 7hinda Fakira Pail! versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The lion 'hie Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale 1)eed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in lA.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.Aep. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanour Page 11 of29 . case the average sale price is lower. Fu;-ther 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 he 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 al7d ]3, 36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the lion 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Rain vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment • r !used to return an actual finding on the issue No.] framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide A'otijlcation of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthai was changed and these areas ceasid to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of J)eihi State. The nias terplan and NotifIcations Of Government for land use change show that in iiture land can be subjected to residentiaL commercial and other permissible uses. it is also pertinent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in re'pect oft/ic 74th amendment the Constitution f India. w. e.f 1.6. 1993 IX A, b virtue of which the A2unlczpai Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municival area and the municjôa.l Counsellor - was elected from there. 1V) Pnchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid aYwn in AIR Supreme court 3467, Ranvir Sing/i and ./inr vs. Union of India and refused to consider the fi: c.'t that the deveiopheni in the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing urchaser wo uld pay /àr. ihcs ubject land () ignored the fci that Respàndent N LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village L3harthal I.A.App. No. 29'1/2010 & . ConneCt .d Appeals of Village Bijwacan A.App. No. .111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur 2 had also Page 12 of29 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about 2. 6 iakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. /) Does not lake into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It 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 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 ,) 3 SCC 661 ii was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to he used fr building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. in) The presence of' a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied kv the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands - were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as' house site, the adloining lands have the potential of. being put in better use as hbuse sites in the near future."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have been provided with a prayer that the appellants of this appeal he treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of l.A.App. No. .1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village llharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/2020 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur I I urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashira, AIR. 2009 SC 2238; Rap/I Mehra ('Major General) Ors. Vc. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) I)LT 361 and that Pre-

i)ctcrmjned Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and. infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparableand ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to asess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequ&e market value •for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 5i-A of Land 4cquisiiion Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence br determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, natur., situation of the property, proximity to the village ei:c. are also required lo he considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have beeh illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpai & Ors vs. Unin of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; La! (]hand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009)15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kuinar vs. Union ?t Jndia decided on 26.09.201 ., it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot he taken to he realistk until reasons for such sharp increase are explainc& by producing in ëvidei-ice the seller LAApp No. 1195/200g & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal iA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA,App. No. 111/2019 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur * a .. and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideratjoi i. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-l)ctcrmjned Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! C'hand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kuinar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land i conceIfled, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Govemmert as on 1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the Reference Court while taking into consideration the appreciation @ 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 1 0% per annum and thereby allowing the cross•- objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17Afie considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned judgment, the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to a willing LA App. No. I 19!:/200g & connected Appeals of Village eharthl !.A.App, No. 294/2010 & connetod Appeals of Village L3ijwasan IA.App No. U1/?Ci4 & connetApppJ5 of Village Pochanpur seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value 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 Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- '(i,) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any dther kind of impOrtance or because of its explosive population;

(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be,

(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land,

(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, la youts of building plots or developed residential extensions in ihe vicinity or close proximity of the acquired iand, (vi,) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the .. acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand fr building purposes, to specifi' a few.

¶18The potentiality of land br the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to.hcar in mind the purpose •for \.A pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Vivage Oijwasan LA.App. No. 21.1/2010 & connected Appeals of ViHage Pochanpur which the lands were sought to he 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 compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Sing/i (supra) that the. exemplars of sn-iall 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 & Anr vs. M.K. Raflq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC • 714. The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where, there is rio basic difference either in location, situation or potentialit y 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 o.f proving the true market value of the acquired. land is on the State who has acquired th agricultural land for a particular purpose. I3ut, 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 Riran. Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with ath'antage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra). while taking note of the fact thai the acquired. lan.d was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- I A.App. No. 1.1.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BharthaI IA.App, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. .211/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . Page i7 0129 "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar iandc, usually the highest of the e.emplars, which is a hona fide transaction, will he considered. Where however there are several sales of simzlar 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 markedly dThreni, it can only lead to an inference that they are with refrence to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot he 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 Pall! (Supra), which are as folio ws : - "Ii is well settled thai genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona flde sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or. utilitj' 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 inarkel. value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the iqnci nature of development in surrounding area, availability f land for development in the area, and the demand for ia'-zd in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices wOuld be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. lA.rpp. No. 11.95/2008 & connected Appeals of village Bharthal i.A.App No. 294/2010 & connected .4ppeak of Village l3ijwasari I.A.App. No, i13/2010& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur S 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 al a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas, in some pockets in big citths, due to rapid development and high demand Jbr 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 dlfference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore f the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be On/v around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb reftrs to the general trend in the nineties, to he adopted in the absence I'.clear and specfIc evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specflc 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 S market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of near/i lands ir previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition,), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safi? where the relied-on-sale tranac1ions/acquisitions precedes the sub/ect acquisition by only afew yeais, that is upto /ur to Jive years. Beyond that ii may be unsafe, even i/it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a rcliahle standard if the gap is only a few years, may become . unsaft and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, jbr determining the market value of a land acquired, in 1992,. adopting the annual increase 'method 21'ith.refrrence to a sale or ,l.'\pp. No, 1 195i 200 & connected Appeals of Village Bhartha! .A.Apo. No 29/1,12010 & co n nected Appeals of Village Biwasan I.App No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals df Village Pochanpor . . Page 19 3f 29 3) acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard 0/increase."

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development corporation (HSIDc,. (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lapds by adopting comparative sales methods What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When different categories of lands (or lands with dlfferent situational advantages) are cicquired for the same purpose, soy /àr forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with re/C rei.ce to previous status or situation should be avoided and a unlforrn rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notflcation."

¶25Undisputedl y, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired Jand of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan Of the period in question are not available and the solitar y sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur. i.e., the seven Sale I)eeds vide which religious institution, ic., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from 52 la.cs to 62 iacs per acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (.Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-l/iO) which arc basically between one st ot co-owners and Radha Swami Satsang, fleas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 1 8 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village . Pochanpur reflec:t the correct rriaket Value of the land in the villages in question is the moot questiOn which is required to he answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exmplars, i.e. Sale Deeds i\.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VWage Bharthal lJ\.App. No. 204/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A App. No. .1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochsrnpur Page 20 .of 29 (Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from 52 lacs to 62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale I)eeds (Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of 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. Thçrefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW .-l/4 to Ex.PW-l/1O) has not been brought. out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purchaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been çlicited 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 purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Marnurpur vide Sale I)eed executed on 25th March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App; No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siñgh i's. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquIsition but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used I or agricultural purpose till their. acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA,ADP, No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village I3harthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.A pp. No. .111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu I 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 consjdered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to 1x.PW-l/l0) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28SC) far as the sale exemplar of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-l/1 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of l,76,55,i72.4l per acre relating to Sale I)eed of 27t1 January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-l/1 1) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-l/l 1) vendor had sold not only th.e land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot he treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29i.efl 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& 1)0 circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-I)cterrnined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. Ilowever, in either 0/the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with rej'erence to the price fetched by aie ofplots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood I A.App. No, I rJ!/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal LA.App. Nc. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village [3ijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur O or whether it he the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price/etched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to he/etched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any oft/ic parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched if sold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date qf publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its valze by a small percentage having regard to the degree qf its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 1/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of tile acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, fOr building plots even f formed in the acquired land."

¶31In view f the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the 1)DA after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Qiand (Supra), held that it is not safe or.advisable to rely upOn the allotment rates/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! ('hand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of A.App. No. ii.95/2008& connected Appeals of Village I3harthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village liijwasan LA.App. No.111/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur 4: the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the I)DA's Pre-I)eterrnined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate 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 I)warka Phase-I and the instant Notification for development of I)warka Phase-IT, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and thereft)rC, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjusli fled.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-Il is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate i.A.App. No. 3195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhatha' lA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No. 1.1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur LI escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross.objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. Afier having perused the decision in Sushil Kuinar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acqiired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushi! Kuinar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court @ 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land ini)elhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. 1St April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by' the learned counsel for appellants because tFie acquired land had ceased to he an agricultural land by virtue Of Notification of 24 October, 1994 declaring , agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Notifidation of the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed hut that by itseJ1is not sufficient to A.App. No. i95/2Oc connected Appeals of ViHage Bharthai pp. No. 94/2oo & connected Aopes of Village Bijwasan LA.Ap 0 No. & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on. the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural.purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record. that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid thei.r hands on other sale instances in the area in question. I3ut, indeed appellants cannot rely UOfl the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-l/1 1) without leading any evidenc:e to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-l/1 I) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Sarnalkha (Ex. PW-i/1 I.) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensation while relying upon the afbresaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the aibre-referred dictum of the Apex Court in 1-laryana State Industrial Development corporation (liSt/iC) (Supra), uniform rate of compensatiOn deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land in Delhi, which generally. factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. 'Faking note of the fact that there is a gap between what A.App. No. .1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connecied Appealc of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 1.11/20.10 & connected Aepeals of Village Pochanpur would he 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 wefl 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 Sushi! 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 market value of the acquired lands in question. l.'inding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher pOtentiality df the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport., Ir.dian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there beipg a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka. Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm I-louses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades 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 building potentiality in the acquired lands is the LA.,\pp. No. 1 19Y2008 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I A.App. No; 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur 1* * settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan K/ian vs. Gollector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."

¶39Considering the fa that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness ëan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), 1 am inclined to grant 1.0% increase over and above the market, value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court. in these matters on account of the. alresaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in. question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding I0% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasari, the appeals of LA.Ap 0 No. .1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeak of Village Pochanpur I' the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined 16,5O,0O0/- per,big for the ^'___-' •% Category A' land and 14,69,600/- per bha for the Category 'B' lands in question. 4 1. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as eplained in the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except. for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no .interest on the enhanced compensation shall he paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The abo\'e captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either ide with the Registrar General of' this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. I)ecree sheets he accord ing}y prepared. (SUNILGAUR) JUI)GE January (}6, 2012 pkb oiv ( r LA.App. No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal t.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan !A.App. No. 1.1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHi AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA . .. .. Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana,, Advocate MrN.S.egi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R. S .Tornar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORD11

12.01.2012 C.M. Appi. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6111 January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice - - - LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6th January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 11 95/2U08 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be car led oUt fôithwith.. in view of the aforesaid; this application stands disposed of. - UNIL GAUR) JANUARY 12, 2012 JUDGE plKI) -. - . ------ LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November , 201] Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 503/2009 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: 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 I versus AJIT SINGH & 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