Nand Kishore & Anr v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm "T~r

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. -5 % + •V: <1 IN THE high, COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ^ ludamentReserv6?dOn: August:2017 JudgmentDelivereclOn:1^ Septehfiber.2011 LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM NO.6549/201X(Cross-Objectioh) • RAiSlNGH^ Appellant ^ Through: IVIr.B.S.Mann,Advocate ' • ; l^r.beepak Khosla,Advocateand Mr.lM-.S.Negi,Advocate. Udl&ANOtHER - ' Through: M Vs. y . ^ .t. Respondents r.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjay;KumarPathal</.Mr.Sachin Nawaini, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kaomudi Kiran; Advocates-fonR-1 AND M 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2010.i'& CM. ^°'a^ ^ 1007/2010&CM.No.:i5i^i/20ll, LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.APP, lOlOfeOiO LAAPp' •.|°36/2010;&.CM No.12865/2011,liA.APP; 5/20il, lA.'aPP.' 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP 38/20ir'& CM :No:6740/2011,U.APP. 41/2011,LA.APP sS^tAA^ 142/2011,,:LA.APP. 160/2011, l^,APP. LA.APP. 24^/2011, LA.APP. 247/2011, IILa.APP. 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011, LArAPP. 347/2611' fX 375/2011, LA.APP; 386/2011, LA.APP. 387/201l'njiA^pp" 407^^0n: 406/2wi;i;APP> Relating to Nofifrcatibn u/Sec.^ 4 .dated,15.09.2000 /\ward No. 06/2002-200p,ViIlagerBhalswaJahanglLPijn^ & ; AND LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters iof22 -•r , f. + . LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.l2871/201T,' LA.APP. 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.^P. 132/2011, LA.APP. 164/2011, LAJ.R&_2QQ/2IU^ 201/2011, LA.APP. 202/2011,(LA.APP. 216/201iJlA.APP.240/2011, LA.APP! 241/2011, 242/20n; LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. , 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011,. LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011,LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011& CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011; LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011 LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011. ^ / ^ (Relating to Notification u/S,ec. 4 dated

30.07.1998 & Award,No. 18/2000-2001,Village-BhalswaJahangir Purl): - CORAIVI: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whetherthe Reportersof local papers may be-allowed • to see the judgment? , .

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether,the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ^ iPRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

¶1Iproceed with an apologyto'the reader by referringto a notification issued later in point of time, and then to a notificationissued prior in point of time; but the reason,is that the learned, counsel for the land owners, had addressed arguments with respect to the notificatidnissued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notificationwhich was issued earlierin pointoftime^

2., Land measuring 758-01 bigha. situated in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa jahangirPurl was'acquiredpursuant LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters. •' . Page2of2'2 to a notification dated

15.09.2000-issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This.was followed.by a'declaration under .Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collector' announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated 20,04.2002, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is-equivalent to .?13.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed at ^13.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector,' the land owners sought reference under' Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference.Court, in the lead matter,, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rat Sinoh Vs. •Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at t3,03,534 per bigha or ^4,56,963 per acre.. , . ~'

¶4' It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well'as the. Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the Government as on 01.04.2000, notified vide •Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing the compensation, did not grant appreciation for the period from

01.04.2000 till the date, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was' issued on ,15.09.2000, but tha learned Reference Court; granted, appreciation fo'r the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the : base date.1.4.2000 and the price?13.82 lakhs per acre.'. LA.App.No.999/2010&cormectedmatters ' ^ • • Page3of22 ,

¶5Another parcel of land ad-nieasuring Q29-f)5 :bigha/ : situated in the same .revenue estate of village Bhalswa ^ Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant:to a notificationissued under Section 4, pf the Land Acquisition Act 18^4, dated . • 30.07.1993,for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitationof . , jj Cluster'. This yvas followed by a declaration-'UnderStolo#^ . ; • of, the Act issued on 04.08.1998. After following,the due : process, the. Land Acquisition CollMor announced an award • bearing: No;i8/20q0-01 dated :i2.03;2001, wherebi^ |e .• assessed the fa-rr rnarket value >of the acquired land' at ^ ^2,33,33.3 per.bjgha which is equivalentto ?11.20 lakhs pef: acre.-.."V..-"' .-V • •^ Dissatisfied with the .assessjTient made by;the Land; . .... Acquisition-Collector,the land,owners soughtrefe'rehceunder , . Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the •: >, lead matter being^ l\lp.lllA/2Qb8titled Chandrawatii/? ' Union bfIndia, assessed"the fair marketvalue of the acquired • :. land at m,46,670/- per acre. .-The difference;in the \ : destination ,reached is on the . same reason^ as noted /hereinabovepertainingto the notificationdated 15,9:2000'i;e/ ' the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoradopting the land. rate, notified;by the .Governmentwith effect from' 1.4,1997 vide circulardated 25.7.1997 and ignorhg that the notificationin; . ^, question,was issued on 30:7.1998and the leathed Reference .Court granting,enhancement @ 11% per ^nnum for the; ./' interregnum period. \ -V 7: The Union of India as well as the land owners have . • . challenged:the assessmentmade by the Learhed.Reference , . LA,App.No;999/2010&connectedmatters ' ' Page4of22' '• , I-T •••1.-. Court By way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned ' •'v'v 9bove... \ ° ' ' .8. ;0;n: behalf of the land;... owners, justifying ' higher - . compensation/ reliance was , placed ^on the fpilowing ^ ' documentary'evidence:-' ; :• :(a,) The rate notified by the L&Dd vide notiification V ; ; ; -dated; 16.Q4.1999 .(Exhibit .PW-4/1), whefeby it : V /• , i "^'SGjosedits intention'to charge unearned-increiase In' / ''.• ; respect of, developed .residential.;.;and commercial :• properties .;owned ;by .L&DO. Relymg' an .this' • : /jj > document, it was argued that;in th& year 19:99, the •. ? \.of residentiar.rand in Azadpur, which, is stated to . *, :.; ' . •' be close tO'Vill.ag.d.Bhalas.waJahangir Purl,, was fixed \ r atr?=5830/-per square meter or t2,35,92,^00.92 per ; i ., ; . ' , and it was urgecJ that, if •50% is deducted -V; , . towards developmentcost,.the,lanti owners should V' be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of • ^1,17,96,200/-per acre. ; , . ;

(b) The rate charged by .MCD for allotment, of • ; ; ^ ,, commercialplot in SanjayGandhiTransportNagar, in: ,; - - terms of the Resolution No.705 dated

23.11.1987 ; (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MGD decided to allot •• \ ' \- ^ : ; r . developed'plots tO; the transporters @'^425/-,per . square.' meter and Exhibit .PW-3/2,.;a copy pf'tBe : ; • Resolution No.61(D dated 21.02.2005, whereby:MCD v^' -' decided:tballot the. plots in SarijayGandhiTransfDort ; f ' Nagar @f4,SOO/-persquare metre were urged,to be ' :' . rn,3terial and good evidence. Relying-on these:^ - ' •' ; • ' LA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmatters •. Page5bf22 •' ' doGuments., learned cdunser.fpr.the land :o\/yners argued thai:;,the: ;rate stated; rri /the Tesolutlons afdr^hptedl,^which-was.applicable fdr thelyear 19,76, . would evidence^that^fair market value of"developed land comes to,?17,l'9,857/- per acre and it was urged , that even if 50% deduction is,made on account of the development. costs, ' for . undeveloped land^> fair ' market vaiuerwouldrbnne to;?8;59,928/-per;atfe in the year 1976 and increasing,the same by 12%^ per •annuhi, the fair market value;ais of 15..9.2000 would be ^24,76,592/- per acre. ; ' ; ^

(c) Learned counsel for the, land owners also placed reliance ori the auction record of fldts^in Rohini Residential Scheme Jn -the year 1997-98.. 1:998-99(ExhibitsPW-8/2 and While relying oh tKe brochureof PDA; pertainingto the year 2-006, it vyas argued that as per the .advertisemeht auctions were held qua flats having plinth area'of 69 square . metr^ to 71 square metre in Jahangir Purl:at a price ranging: between t23,;72 la^hftp T2&.4 lakh, -which . according to learned 'counsel,translates to a price ofv ^?14,36;,36,363 per .acre and 'counsel • urged that suitable deduction could be effected.,;therefrom ' (d) ;Relyin:gdn;a sa-le'deed of village Khera Khurd ^ ; -fExmbit;PW-15/1),whereunderl.and'™asti:rin^:2-1.9^ .V ; • ^7 - ;^bigha was •sold; ^32,40,3t)0A .on 25;04.2:001, learned counsel urgedthat the price per acre cpmes : ; to ^56,93,163/-^ per bigha. Itf was •V • -f , • Gontended that, this sale deed should beVr-eiieci^upon, i;-^ after mal<ing a reasonable deduGtion. towards i development cost to deter,mine.the fair market'value ... of undeveloped agricultural land |n village Bhalswa ^ - Jahangir Puri. Another-sale deed-dated .24.03,2000 , ' (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the .revenue estate of village Mamurpurwas sold toRadha SwamiSatsang Vyas at, r a price of ^26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon. .

(e) ; Learned .cpunsel for the land owners also relied ; , upon an Agreerhent to. Sell (ExhibitP.W-6./.1.)which was , executed by one Shri Khushi Rani in,'favour of a . society'iVj/s.Butterfly',-whereunderland vyas agreed to . V , be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^18 lakhs perJacre./ It was ' : r \ .'.urged that .the .land was ,in\the. revenue estate of . ' .,, . vii'lag.e BhalswajahangirPuri and ."thus was pressed in - . aid as good evidence/of fair rnarket value of land in ' ' ; the said village as of the date of the agreement,to sell : ; ' -' i.e.;5.;8^1996..

¶9Per contra, VSh^Sanjay,Poddar. fearried senior; counsel • appeann^g on behalf/of,Union of India relied on ,a Sale Deecl • ,dated;05;,06.199:6(ExhibitR-2), wliereunder1-03 bigha'ofland' ;. .in village Bhalswa, Jahangir Puri was sold ^at a price.' of-', ^1,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciatibnper annum , is to be giveri on said value, the price as on the date of the - notificationunder.Section4 comes to n,94,782'perbigha, and /thus it was argued that since price of similarland is,availabl^ ^ : iq the isame village, it would be irnprudent to travel to the • adjoining village or to adopt,the price of developed liand for LA.App.No.999/2010 & coimected matters f/- fixing the market value of undeveloped agricultural land ' .•' ' having a'vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the^ • learned Land Acquisition Collector has, ass.essed.the fair ^^ • marketvalul of the land at a price much higherthan the one ^^ • •reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has .the learned Reference Court. , .

¶10It may be noted that when judgmentwas.reservedin the^ above captioned.matters,on 19^^ August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgment in a batch of land acquisition . . appeals,lead matterbeing LA.App.No.266/2008titledJa/5ZA75^ •-jk ' ' 1/?. [JOf&Ann in. which Similarargumentsas .were advanced -vvith-.respect,to similar evidence relied upon in the instant , appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar • • • ' submitted that, in response to the arguments of learned counsel for the land owners, the arguments'which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be. .treated as his response. . . •

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri ha:? ' \ come out in-the deposition of Shri TrilokChand who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.112A/2008titled Rai Sinqh V^lJnion of India in which he has explained the tbpplogy of the, , , area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex..PW-2/lof.village Bhalswa JahangirPuri., His testimonywould reveal that villageKadipur and Libaspur are situated.in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari.are situated in the East, villagesSamaipurBadIi and Haiderpurare situated in the West and villages Bharola and - Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of. village Jahangir - Puri. • ^ • LA.App.No.999/20rO&coimectedmatters ... • Page8of22

¶12I -may additionally note tinat the, lay out .plan of the National Capital' Territory of Deihi, published by the . Governnhent of NCT Delhi woul.d reveal that village Bhalswa , .Jahangir Puri is,situated^ on the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road ; . i.e. National Highway No.1. VillagesBadii,,Samaipur,\Libaspur, Khera Kaian, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the western • • . '• side of NationalHighwayNo.1. , 13. It needs to be highlighted that whatever development;' .r took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of. said > / village Was for re-settlementof slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the ; character of urbanization, in the area was of a kind where potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision, reported Amar Sinoh 1/9. IJninn nf , / India 1998 (V) AD (pelhi) ^81, it was noted that there existed a ' resettlement colony called Jahangir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the. year 1975- •

¶76It has to be rememberedthat the two subjectacquisitions^ were also for re-settlement of.slum and J.J.Clusters. • . , . -

14.: The decision in' LA.App.No.266/2008lai Sinah Vs. UP! Ann \Nh\ch was reserved,-on 12.8.20ir and had yet-to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals'were reserved •f'or judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 • • and 1 would highlight that; while assessing the fair market . value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same; . • revenue district i.e. Kidrth-WestDelhi being revenue estate of villages,Poo.thKhurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth, .Alipur,.Narela,' y :Hajapur Kalan, Holambi^ Kalan, Khera. Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area. .. LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters'• Page9of22 ' constituted a 'V at tine point of intersection wlnere G'.T.Karn|I' Road i.e. NH-1 and Rolntak'Road i.e. N^-IO bifurcateGl at a commoli point, proceeding in ,different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. it needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained herelhabovie :; and abuts towards the east of NH-l.

1.5. in the appeals relating to the said 10.villages,where land , were acquired pursuant-to different notifications issued from time to tihne I had dealt with notifications issued in the year • • • 2000y 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases,• learned counsel ' for the land owners had relied, upon the sale deed dated .. . 25,04.2001 (Exhibit • PW-15/1) and the sale deed dated* ,24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2)' i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land .owners ^have placed reliance upon; as noted in sub-para ,(d) of para ,8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have ,discarded these ; two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:- ,21. the first argument i^.predicated on.the 2:saie , / deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the ,. sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. • As per the former, fair market value ,for the former ' comes to.^26.75 lakhs per acre and the 'latter @ ' , f63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned'•Reference ,Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agriculturar lands, fpr all the villages In question on the reasoning that'the. sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was • • • purchased by a religious trust by the'. name of ; 'Radha. Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who ' • ' had tendered the sale deed, in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land Was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewi.se • • LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . .Page 10 of22 been held not to be reliable evidence to deterrtime. - fair market value; of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non, Governnlent Organization ''Ghristian.Qraanization" ahd as per thetestimonyof P\A/-7 Sist^ Annie, the secretaryof the organization stated thal^ the organization had to pay the price for the said pifece of land as it was lhe only plot of the requisite size suitable for the - requirement of the organization and is being' used ^ for destitute women i.e. there was a special arcumstance/personal to the vendee. .22.: As .held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SGG.717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru :& Ors. Vs. Mi Rohihi&Anr. (Referpara 6) and 2009 (14) SCG 369 j^ohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale'transactions evidenced in a sale deed which areotenderedin evidenceby virtue. - of Section 5lA of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated, as an exemplar, sale deed-to • ; determine the, market value of land' in an area' for . the reason there may be special circumstances which,haveled;the buyerto pay a higher.price. The ' true test is.the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well ihforrrledseller without., being' ..influenced by any , special circumstancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpidce• of land-Ar informed"buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land ,in the area; has understood/ the - topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy fgr a particularpiece of land,/he may, pay a much higher price and this would not be ' a good index of fair market value of the lahds in the area. I would ,be failing if I do not highlightthat the ' Union of India had relied upon tfie sale deed dated

20.5.2002, which -was accepted by" the learned Reference Gourt pertaining to the notificationdated 27^.2003 where-underagriculturalland In village Rajapur Kalan was sold by ahj agriculturistto an agriculturistfor a much lesserpnjce i.e. ?17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which conies to ^63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and f28 89" per acre/for ,6x:pW-1/3.. The 2 sale deeds /; •,LA.App.N6.999/2010&connectedmatters '' ' ' " • jPage11 of22 ' • • > w- • --vi •• p Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie • destroy each other. ' • . i. • •

¶23Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with 'which ! concur, afore-noted reasons .in; para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2 'sale deeds would - . advisably not be good evidence wherefrom•fair ' market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason Ifind,that undervarious awards nearlybetween7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired,and when the acquisitionis of such large an area, it would make ail the more a reason to .be circumspect on sale deeds havinq. r-. - • • of the transaction being the result . of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned ' ' the, decision ' dated • ••^^•i2.2008 disposing,of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA193120QQ Pratap Sinnh (since deceased) thru IRs l/s. um nrc: |t was highlightedthat the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased8 bigha and 9 biswa "of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been' •ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had,a fancy for the said land and , hence the price reflected, therein could not be treated as a good evidence of vklue of land in the area was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deductionon account of the parcel,of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instantcases the 2 sale' , , deeds m question i.e. Ex:PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as.the basis to. determine fair . marketvalue. The argumentign,oresthe reasoning ^ of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept,the . . ';:'u 'dgic as indicative . ^, of the market value,' but found that if the price ; therein was reduced by 1/3^^ the price arrived at-would be the same as would be price arrivedat with reference.to the average rate of the sale deeds - - produced by the Unjon of India i.e. the sale deeds. ,• LA.App.No.999/2010&,coiinectedmatters ' ' Page12 of22 produced by the Government were .giving a price of .... ?1,37;000/- per bigha and the sale deed'-under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price , ' ?3.,26,600/-per bigha and the average would come to^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of. ^2,15,1.60/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'^ would be' deducted. ' ' from the sum of ^3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted, that in the said judgment the year of the sale was. 1993 and the . notification under •Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995 and

16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market Value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived, at as aforesaid i.e., / ^2,15,160/-. In. other'words, the reasoning of the • , Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but jA, • ' ; • meaningfully., It is not that the Court treated the . sale -deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required'to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent ' contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually . . destructive evidence of,the 2 sale.deeds: reflecting • ' fair market value." '16. For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also: as reliable and good evidence tO; • • determin'e fair market, value of agricultural -land, in village-Bhalswa Jaharigir Puri. '

¶17As regards the agreement to .sell (Exhibit P.W-6/1), the land situated in village BhalswaJahangir Puri has been agreed - to be transferred:for a sum of ns .lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated •

01.07:2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at • • ' ?15,70,000/-.- ' ' :

¶18Now, if the p'rice, as per the own showing of the land owners was'?15,70,000/-per acre as on 01.07,2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010&colmectedmatters• , • Page13 of22 difficult to comprehend..the abnormally high value as per Ex.PW-6/1which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is , . fl8 lakhs per acre. It is indeed,a puzzlethat in'199,6the price. , was ?18 .lakhs per acre and 7 years down-theline the price fell to nsj lakhs per acre. I need to highlightthat in paragraph 39 of its decision, the learned Reference Court,, while examining Ex.PW-e/l has opined.that .the said price was for special cpnsiderations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer and an infornried willing seller and without being influenced by .special needs, pertaining to a jrv -, particular land,^^nd had thus discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom,fair market value of a large .track of land, had to be fixe.d. -

19.. |. have discussed.,this issue in my "decision .dated ,23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008lai Sinah I/?. UP! &Anr. i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with • evidence of neither the buyer,nor the seller being well-informed and there,being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be good evidence to delerniine fair market value of a large part of .land, being the fanciful price paid by-a buyer smitten With fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reiterate the same. - ' •

¶20As regards auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, I do not find, any substance in.the arguments of the learned counsel for the^ • land owners and concur with the decision of the learned • Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30:'whichare premisedon the decisionof the Supreme Court reported as La] • . , la. App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page14 of22 •Chand. Vs. Union, of Indm 2009 (15) SCC 76,9;. Similar is the ' reasoning -pertaining to the evidence ,relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by. DDA. ,21. In my decision dated 23.8.20li in LA.App.;No..266/2008 , Isi Singh Vs. UP/ & \ had extensivelydiscussed the law ... declared' by the Supreme'Court m Lai Chancf'^s with referenceto price ^t which developed plots were allotted'by . differentagencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. ..Relevantobservations ^ ,and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in JaiSingh's case ; ,, are-extracted hereunder:- . . ' • , ' -k ' • . . . . '

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was , . the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDG or DDA with' reference to the Bawana IndustriaTEstate developed by DSIDC and Narela ResidentialScheme developed by DDA. Whetherit was 20% or 75%, we do not know • The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same • , . • factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the . Supreme Court in Lai Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine : the value of land in the subject cases. - .

¶30It is .no doubt true, as held even by the learned •- f^eference Court, that with the development of Bawana .Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residentia'IScheme, the subject lands had ' _ , acquired a building potentiajity, but the question ~ , . • would be what would be the value to which the - building,potentiality would translate itself;

¶31I hojd that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping • i,n view the observation and the.'findings of the ; • Court in case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable; ; On the issue of potentialityrelating itself to the value, I promise the ..reader of the decision, to deal with the same while 1 shall be discussing as to what should be the fair . . market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010&connected'matters ' Page15r-of22'' • •. '

¶22Highlighting that in Lai Chancfs, case (supra) the Supreme Court .held that such raw data was meaningless and .was too inchoate wherefrom .fair market value could be crystallized.

¶231reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD / allotted'developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair-market value of agricultural land. . 24. Pertaining to price-notified by L&DO for charging-unearned increase when lease-hold property'under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be tO'state that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind"of evidence was specifically .discussed and discarded with . .. reference to village Rithala.where lands were acquired for Rohini.^ResidentialScheme, I negate the plea for compensation . to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large ,tracks of lands ad-measuring: 758.01, bigha and 929.05 bigha. • ; - . ^

¶25From the topology of the area and as per the.testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC .- NO.112A/2008 it emerges,that village Burari is on the east of village,.B,halswaJahangir Purl and indeed the plan for Delhi •; Would,reveal that the two.villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri./ , , . and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the. Tibetan Re-settlement ' colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara iviajnu Ka'Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'Outer Ring Road'and LA.App.No.999/2010&comectedmatters, . '' . , Page16 of^ :;/7r*'rT, IV V thus the fair market value of land on a particulardate in the two villages would be comparable^ '

¶26Whileassessingthe fair marketvalueofthe landsituated in village Burari, Which was acquired pursuantto notificatiohs dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07.2003issued under Section 4,of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1had considered the material on record ,i.e. the evidence in my decision,;pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead rhatter being L.A. Appeal IMo.971/2008titled Raibai& Or-; Vs. Umnn nftnclmX. Qr^ In the said decision,Ihad assessedthe fair marketvalue of agriculturalland at fll,60,580.82per acre for CategoryA land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category,B' land and ?9,28,464,55per acre for CategoiyCland pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquired,pursuantto notificationdated 18.07.2003.had been assessed by me at n9,20,568/-per acre forCategoryAland and n7,28,512/-per acre for Category Bland, "ln case'(si/p«),I had assessedthe fair marketvalueof land in 10 villagesas;under:- S,No.

1.

2.

3.

¶4VillageName | Date-oTTotification' under Section 4 Pootli Ktnurd .

7.8.2000 Holambi Kalan Bawana

7.8.2000

7.8.2000 Khera Kiiurd

11.9.2000 LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Fair market value (:in lak-hs per acre) ^14.75 for Category 'A' ?14.3728. for Category 'B' m.75 n4.75^ for Category 'A' ^4.38125 for Category 'B' ;?14.835 for .Category 'A' :?14.46413 for Category 'B' -r

¶5Narela

2.5.2001 ?16.165 . for Category 'A' ^ ?15.76087 for Category 'B' ^ 6. , Holambi Kaian

22.8.2001 ^1.6.745. • for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B' . 7. . . Alipur

22.8.2001 • n6.745 for' Category 'A' ' n6.43811,for Category 'B' 8- • Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 . % ?

16.745 . for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B' • 10. ; Sanoth -

7.12.2001 ^7.295 .

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ^8.655

¶12Sh.ahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶13Holambi K^lan ,23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶14Alipur ,

23.5.2002 f 18.655

¶15Sanoth

27.1.2003 n9.435 for Category 'A' ?18.94912 for Category 'B' ?18.47539 for Category '.C

¶16Rajapur Kalan •

27.1.2003 ,fl9.435 for Category'A' fl8.94912 for Category's' n8.,47539 for Category 'C 27-In lai Sinqh's case (supra) I had also analyzed theV rninimum land rates enhanced by the Goviernriientfrom time to time and found the same not to be the ipse of the LA.App.No.999/2010(& cojinectedmatters ;: , , Govemnnent:officers and not bnly^; ratrohaiejDut a^ :'.v ,^ rellecti^n-of: urbarijzatipn inipa such increase. , .With; rcference to the decisions of;;fp,ur Division benches of this vCourt reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Singh l/:g. UO! & •••, Arrr., 2004 Iv AD Delhi2'^ Ram Chander Vs. Z/Q/. ln r^nnkv ; P'-T 95 Hukum Singh 1/5. 6^(9/and an uhreported dedsion in LA.App.No.866/2005 l^/IahenderSinah Vs. UQi & Qrs. dpridp'd on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and.other evidence- "'. la^nd price was determinedon variousdates betweenthe years 1993 to 1996 and in relationto the mihimum pricefixed by the Gn GovernmenM had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said' . i •' decision;as under:- / ' ' aforesaid-judgments noted in the preceding . :: paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from vtirpeto time by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying ,. , , : minimum price for agriculturallands in Delhi as^tabulated, by me in pai^a 7 aboye bring outtwo very importantfacts-relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of: : , ^ agricultural land in Delhi over the years comrnehcihg ,. from theyear 1990. As of 27.4.1990.minimum^price was, : ^4-65 lakhs per acre which rose to f10 lakhs per acre as;: • ' of ^•4-^997 :i.e. the increaseis ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7"' .• -years which gives us a 115.054%increasein 7ye^rs.ahtf the average"priceincreasewould be 16.436%. The price rise over the, next.l year is by 11.2% and thereafter by.• 11 /o for the next 2 years,and11.5%\forthe next year i.e. as of 1,4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization :between.the year 1990 and. 19;97 prices grows fairly • sharply and good corroborative•evidence, for; this would be the decision,,;of the Division Bench of this Court in Ga'fra.is case (supra), which 1have discussed in para 49 • , above. " ^

¶51I need to elaboratea littlemore with respectto the - decisjon jn Gajrals : •Discussing the eyldencev• pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in ' viliaqe Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in paras'g to 17 • ••• - ,, :LA:App.No.999/2010 connected• •Page.l9of22 V • the ,Court, discussed the valuation an the basis.'of •^ agriculturajyield and found that the gross return per acre ^ni^unn-was?95,000/-for multiple cropped land and - , having .good irrigationfacilitib:and thus capitalizedthe ' land priceat ?9.5/ial<hs per acre. Discussingth^ second' ,. . method of land prices of comparable,glands in the • \ ^ ' ^^^""ounding areas includihg potentiality, in para' 19 onwards the Court,discussed the. matter with reference to lanci 'prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where Fd Godowns, had come up and based on :sale :instances \ found that based on the said sale instancesand giving . . , ' . . of industrialization the land price would come to , .^10^03,364/-per ^cre (Refer para 31). The Court then ; consideredithe prices notified by the Governmentas per : policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked^ out the m^h^' : /TV . ,. pv^age figure of:?9;76,121/-per acre for Category W . ' '• ' ^^'^V^21/- per acre,for Category-'B' lands.' nr highlights that'the. pbtentiality had been : well-factored in: when the iSovernrndnt'issued the , \ ; ; ;minimum price:nQt:ificationw.e.f. 1.4:1997,evidehGedbf sale:transactibns the . . ,- found that as against the minimum price notified . r ; ', • nighiightmgthat the price was tl0,03,364/-peracre. ,

¶52The decision ih'; MahehderSingh'p'=^rtRininn v : . J° );;'('39e.B.awana^referred to by h^e in para.49 above .• • ' ; M-eference to para 28^to ^ the IMaster Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken intbf ^ the Court which was projectingTesidentia^^^ ;•, . ,. A; commercial -^nd ,industriar future expioitatidn of ' \ ; , agricuitura!land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality; . . " had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so ; ' P'^oj^cting and the lands ;theoreticaliy acquiring a potentiality,the sanrie had not translated,into a reality >. ^ ' ' evidencedby the fact that till;the year 1996 iv^: the date of the notification with which the Divisibn Bench.was' • - concerned,virtually no developmenthad.taken place in , village Bawana and Holambi Kalan ;and ndbody had: : ' ; exploitedthe potential.-As I have.alreadyhighiightedin para 49 above there is a gap between what would be ' expected to be the nnarket growth.and wHat the market ' - ; actually grows. The decisions in / Ga^s caise and r . - LA,App.Np;999/2'010&connected-matters. •. Page20 of22 • <1)) . Mahender Singh's•. case highlight that potentially , translated itself into a reality-between ,1990 and i9'97 • when prices rose by about

16.5% per annum and . .thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite monnentum and the acceleration fell to. between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be. that pursuant to Master Plan'for Delhi 1990 a • ' .: fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, ' commercial and industrial and probably there was . • enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart ^ . - from the.2 sale deeds relied upon,by the land.owners, in . ' respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given • good reasons not to rely upon and forwhich.l have given j|- further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinaboVefor not •relying upon, being fanciful-sale deedSi to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale, deed relied upon •by the learned. Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said , sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.20Q2 the fair 'market value of agricultural lands would be . ?19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha arid 13 biswa of land which was .sold for ^5,39,690/- and ?70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ?6,09,8'50/- (f5,39,690/- + ?70,160/-) were , . spent would yield, the price ?17,74,i09/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002. . ,. ,

¶28ifl the absence of any cogent evidence..placed on record by either parties other than the minimum price notified by the • Government from time to' time, I hold that the' Learned , - Reference Court has rightly adopted-the correct'principle and has relied upon the correct evidence arid has given the correct appreciations,by suitably increasing the price to make up tfe interregnum period betw.een the.dates when minimum,prices. ; . were, notified and the -date of the notification issued under .LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' Page21 of22 I Section4of the Land Acqi,isitionAct and finding' no scope to furtner enhance the compensationor to reduce the same I dismiss all appealsand cross objection^whetherfiled by the land-ownersorthe Union of.lndia:. 29" Ileavethe partiesto beartheirown cost. . (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) SEPTEMBER19, 2011 JUDGE mm LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page22 of22

V $-47 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 216/2011 NAND KISHORE & ANR Appellant Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Ivir.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG