Union of India v. Dal Chand & Ors

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. -r-7 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm . -i m A; v' % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ? ludament Reserved On: Aunust 2017 ludqment DeliveredOn: 19^'^September. 2011 LA.APP; 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Ot^ectioni RAI SINGH, Applnant ^ : , Through: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mff-DeepalcKhosIa;Advocateand Mr.W.S.Negi,Advocate.; • .^' L . ' iX UOl &ANC^ER , : ; : Respbndte Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate ' & MrSanjay Kumar Pathak/ M^^^^ / i^r-Siddharth Panda and Ms.k ' : ' Kaoniudi Kiran, Advocates-f^^^^^ . : AND : + LA.APP. 961/2010,:.. LA.APP. 1001/2010 1007/2010&.CM No.l51&/201l' l^,/\PP. 1009/2010, LA.APP; 1010/2010/ LA.APP' '\'o-12865/2011,LA.APP-5/2011 LA'aPp' W2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. ^'^'.^•^''-^^2011,LA.APP.:89/^mAP^ JL.42/2011,. LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2011 LA APP |65/2011 LA.APP. 24q/201i; LA.APP. 24moM'U'^p' ?4®2Q11, LA.APP. 29,§/2011, LA.APP. 3.47/201]!'* APp' LAvAPP. 387/20li' tAAPp' U.APP. 3:9^/2011. LA.APP. 406;2Si:KaPP; (Relating to Notification u/Sec.;,'4 ;dated 15.09.2000 & Award No. 06/2002-200p,VillagepBhalswaJahanglrSi) V CM AND ; >LAApp.No:999/2010&connectedmatters • ' ••• • 'V-' ••• • : • i^age.lof 22^ " - + LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM Nq.12871/2011, LA.APP. 818/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 164/2011,, LA.APP...200/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 202/2011, LA.APR. 216/2011, LA;APP. 240/2011. LAAPP. 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011,fT:A.APP.243/201i^H^r^APP. 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2OT:-i, LA.APP. ; 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011,LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.l5194/2011, LA.APP.34,9/2011& CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LAiAPP. 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/Sec. 4 dated

30.07 1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001,Village-BhalswaJaha'ngirPuri) " CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJQG ;

¶1Whether the Reporters of 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? PRADEEP 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 notification issued later and had required price to be suitably, reduced pertaining to the notificationwhich was-issuedearlierin pointoftime. :

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated,in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangirPurl was acquired pursuant, LA.App.No.999/2010"& connectedmatters • ^ , '• Page2of22 - • to a notification dated

15.09.200,0 issued under Section 4 of tlie Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This .was followed by a deciaratipn under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04'.2001. After following the due process, the Land ;AcqLiisit|on Collector announced his award bearing No,6/2002-Q3 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 Raj Sinah 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^3,03,534 per bigha om4,56,963" per acre.

¶4It 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 the learned Reference Court granted, appreciation for the .said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date:i.4.2000.and the price?13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010&'comiectedmatters• ' Page'3of22

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was'acquired pursuant to a notification,issued under 'Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998,forthe same'.pubiicpurpose i.e; 'Rehabilitationof ' JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration'UnderSection 6 ' ,of ;the Act. issued on 04.08.1998.., After following the due ; process, the Land Acquisition Collectorannounced"an award, bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market, value of the acquired land at ^2i33,333 per bigha which is eq;u,iValentto m.20 lakhs per acre. / . - 6. . Dissatisfied with the assessment made .by 1the Land , AcquisitionCollector,the land owners sought referehce'under Section.18 of the Act. The Learned Referen.ce Court, in .the .'lead matter being LAC .No.lllA/2008titled Chandi^awRti l/^r . Union ofIndia, assessed,the fair marketvalue of the acquired• ' . land at ni,46,670/- per,, acre..: The differenceiin the destination reached is on the same reason as noted, hereinabovepertainingto the notificationdated 15.9.2000i.e. ' the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoradopting the land rate notified by the Government with .effect from 1.4.1997 vide' ' circulardated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the, notificationin, _ . question was issued on 30.7.1998and the learned Reference' Court granting enhancement 11% per'annum for the interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as well as the land owners have , •• • challenged the assessmentmade by the Learned Reference. LA.App:No.999/2010(S: connectedmatters •, : ' . Page4of22 J Court by way of the ajDpeals and cross objections mentioned above.. • . ,

¶8On behalf of the land; owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on . the following documentary, evidence:- , • ,

(a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification , : dated

16.04.199,9 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it • disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase in.' respect of developed residential and commercial properties pwned by L&DO. Relying on'l, this . — document, it was argued that in the year .1999, the rate of residential Jand in Azadpur, which/is stated to •. be close to village Bhalaswajahangir Purl, was fixed • ; at ?583(j)/- per square meter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per acre and it was urged that ,if 50% is ^deducted towards development cost, the land owners should ' • be entitled to enhanced compensation in \sum of ^1,17,96,200/-per acre.

(b) The rate charged by MCD for allotmeht of commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in. ' terms of .the Resolution No.705 dated

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to .allot developed plots tO' the transporters @ ?425/-..per square meter and Exhibit P:W-3/2, a copy of.the • . ' • Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD - decided to aijot the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport ' •' Nagaf (a) ?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No,999/2010&coimectedmatters , Page5of22 . 1 documents, learned counsel for the land 'owners , argued , that ..the rate stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was. applicable for the year 1976,. would evidence that fair market value of d.eyeloped ' land comes to fl7,19,857/-per acre-and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to ^8,59,928/- ,per acre in the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would ie ?24,76,592/-peracre. • , . ^c) Learned counsel for the land owners also , placed reliance on the auction record of plots, in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98. and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying on the brochure of PDA pertaining to the year 2:006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 .square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ^^23.72 lakh to ^28.4 lakh,- which according to learned counsel translates to a price of n4,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged /that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land. •.

(d) • Relying on a sale deed of village Kherai Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land mieasuring 2-19. bigha was sold @ ?32,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, ' : learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/-. or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters' '' Page6of22 contended that this sale deed should^ be relied upon, after making a reasonable deduction, towards development cost to, determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricultural, land in village Bhalswa ; Jahangir Purl. Another.sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2),. whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at - • a price of ?26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was ' executed by one Shri Khu.shi Ram in favo.ur of a: . , society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed'to - be sold on 05'.08;i996 @ n-8 lakhs per acre. At was' urged that the land, was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence, of fair market value of land in the, said village as of the date of the agreement to sell i.e. 5.8.1996. '

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay .Poddar learned senibr-.counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India relied on aVSale Deed, dated 05.06.1996(ExhibitR-2), whereunder1-03 bigha of land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl was sold at a .price of a,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given on said value, the price as on the date of the. notificationunderSection4 comes-tofl,94,782 per bigha, and , thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed:fand for LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • Page7of22 •r I' ff fixing the marl<et value of undeveloped agricultural land having a'vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the fair, market value of the land at a price much higherthan the one . reflected in Exhibit R-2 ahd 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.266/2008.titled ' 1/?:•UP! &Ann in, which similararguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and' learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in respo.nse to the arguments•of lea counsel for.the land owners, the arguments which he had advanced oh the earlier occasion may be. treated as iiis, response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Ja-hang.ir Puri has come out in the depositionof Shri Trilokphand '{HalqaPatwari). who appeared as PW-2.in LAC No.ll2A/2008titled Raj Sincjh 1/9 Union of India\n which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the yi/rsS/zra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa JahangirPurl. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated,in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and B.u.rari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badii and Haiderpurare situated'in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala.are situated in the South of. village Jahangir • Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters.. • " ' . Page8of22

¶12I may additionally note that the lay out .pl-an of the National Capital Territory, of Delhi, published by. the Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on .the eastern side of G.T.'Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. VillagesBadii, Sama.ipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalap, Alipur, Mamborpur.(Narela) are. on the western .side of National Highway No.l. • ' '

13.. It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate, of villageJahangirPuri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said-village was for re-settlementof slun^ 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 weiak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah l/s. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 45i, it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir Puri in the area" which had: sprung up during the perio.d of emergency i.e. the; year 1975- ^ I

¶76It has to be remembered tha,t the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement of slum and J.J.Clusters. ..

14.. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinah l/s: UOi & , Mn which was reserved on 12.8.'2011 and had, yet ,to be . pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals, were reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me oh 23.8.2011. and I would highlight that; while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue' estates in the same ' revenue district i.e. North-WestDelhi being revenue estate of^ villages Pooth Xhurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth. 'Alipur,- Narela-, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of .the area LA.App.No.999/2010c6; connectedmatters " Page9of22 Go'nstituted a 'V at the-point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtal< Road i.e.. NH-IO bifurcated afa common 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 hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NIH-l. ; :

¶15In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time.I had dealt with notifications issued, in the year 2000, 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-lS/l) and the sale, .deed dated . . 24.03.2,000 (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 hereinabdve.' In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, J have/discarded these two sale deeds-for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21The first argument:is predicated on the 2^:sale. • 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 iatter @ ' f63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned. Reference . Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable • evidence to determine fair market value • of agricultural lands, for.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-172 has likewise • LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters .' Page10 of22 Ik been held not to. be reliable evidence to determine fair market value , of agricultural lands on the-reasoning it was purchased by. a Non Government ^ ' Organization "Christian Organization"and .as per • the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of , the organization stated that the organization-had to ' pay the price for the said piece of land as it was the 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 circumstance, personal to the vendee. ' ,

¶22As held in the decisions reported as ,19^5 (1) . . sec .717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors Vs. , /sti Rohini&Ann {Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC ~ Moiid. Raufuddin l/s. Land Acnuisifinn (.Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a •sale ,deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of'Section 51A 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 have led the buyerto pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced, by any special circumstancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpiece^ of land. An 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 prevailingprides. If a buyer has a'fancy for a particularpiece of land, he niay pay a much higher pri.ce and this would not.be a:good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be faiiing if i do not highlightthatthe Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated .20..5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notificationdated

27.1.2003 where-underagriculturalland in village - Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to.an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. ^17,74,109/- per acre,, as against the price which comes to , ^63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and. ?28 89 lakhs per acre.,for;Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters , Page11 of22 ' ;• t") Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsicevidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus,,apart from the reasoningof the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted• reasons in para 21 above would be additional ' that the 2 sale deeds, would advisably not be good evidence whe'refrom 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 niake all the rhore a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsicevidenceof the transactionbeing the result or a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned dated d9.]^2.2008 disposing of a batch ^of appeals, lead • matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh decked) thru !Re: Us. upi ^ If highlightedthat the sale.deedtherein by which L&T I 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 thereincould not be ' treated as a good evidence of value of land in 'the area was rejected by the Court and the price in. question,with suitabledeductionon account0f the parcel of land being large, was accepted by. the' Court and thus even in the instantcases the 2 sale ' Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 .. should be treated as the basis to determine fair' market^value. The argumentignoresthe reasoning ITo u of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the • , value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but found that if the price ; ^er^iTw^ ,reduced by 1/3^^ the price arriv^ at would be the sameas would be pricearrivedat with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds .LA.App.No.999/2010cfeconnectedmatters ^ • 'Page12 of22 h-produced by the Government we're 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 f2,31/800/- which was near about the price of ^2,15,160/- 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 tlie 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 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." j.

¶16For.the reasons therein, I reject these two. sale'deeds in the present case also as reliable and' good' evidence •to determine fair market value, of; agricultural land in village. Bhalswa jahangir Puri. . , .

¶17. As regards .;the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village.BhalswaJahangir Puri has been agreed to be'transferred for a sum of ?18 .,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 n5,70,TO0/-.

¶18Now, if the price, as per the ^own showing of the land owners was ,^15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.b7.2003, it is , LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters 'P'age13 of22 ' difficult to, comprehend the abnornnaHy high value as per Ex.PW-6/1which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed-a puzzle that in.1996 the price was .^'IS lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the price fell to ?15.7 lakhs per acre. I need to highlight that in paragraph .39 of its decision, the learned. Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opined that the said price was for . special considerations, and not the price settled between an informed, willing, buyer and an informed wiiling seller and .without being influenced by special needs pertaining to a ' • particular land, and had thus discarded'the said sale deed as ' not reliableevidence wherefrom.fair market value,of a large track of land had to be fixed. ' ^ 19. I have discussed this issue in. my decision dated

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah Vs. UP! & Anr. i.e. • where an abnormally high price,for a parcel of jahd 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 d.eterniinefair 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. 1reiterate, the same. • 20. As regards auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, ] do .not find any substance in the arguments of the learned couns;elfor the land Owners and concur with the decision of, the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premisedon the decisionof the SupremeCourt,reportedas La! ' LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' Page14 of22 Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SGC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertainingto the evidence relating to auttion rates of residential plots or fiats by DDA. • .21. In my decision dated 23.8.201,1 in LA.App.No,266/2008 jai Singh l/s. UOI &Qrs., I had extensivelydiscussedthe law declared by the Supreme•Court in M_CMz^s case with referenceto price at which developed'plots were allotted by differentagencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC, Relevantobservations, and findings in para 29 to .31 of.the decisionin lalSindh'scase • are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with ' ' reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed •by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme 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 Lal Chand's case (supra), which render this .evidenceas most unreliableto determine the value of land in the subject cases. .

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

¶311hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping m view the observation and the findings ,of the Supreme Court in Lai Chand^raqp (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On' the issue ^of • potentialityrelating,itself to the value, I proniise the • 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.999/201O&coimectedmatters '' ' "; Page15 of22''

¶22Highlighting that' in La! Chancfs case (supra) thd Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and . was' too'inchoate •wherefrom., fair market value could be, crystallized. . • 23; 1reiterate, the reasoning to hold that price at which MGD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagarand 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 (ands ad-measuringi 758.Or bigha and 929.05 bigha. ;

25.^ From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW.2-in LAC • NO.112A/2008it emerges that village Burari is on the east of • •village Bhalswa,Jahangir Puri and indeed the plan for Delhi •would reveal,that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jaharigir Pun 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 Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'Outer,Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters " -Page16 of22 0-1/ thus the fair market value of land on a particulardate in the two villages would be comparable. '

¶26Whileassessingthe fair njarl<etvalue of the land sltuatetl in village Burari, which was acquired pursuantto notifications dated 24,07.1998and 18.07.2003issued under Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct, I had considered the material on record i.e. the. evidence In my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of U.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal IMo.971/2008titled Raibalfi Or'; Vs. Union 'nflnr<i^'x, Qrs, In the said,decision,Ihad assessed,the fair marketvalue of agriculturalland at ?U,60,580.82pe.r acre for CategoryA land, ?10,44;522.73 per•acre for Gategory B. land and ?9,28,464,65per.,acre for Category Cland pertainingto the notificationdated^ 24.7.1998. The land acquired-pursuanto notificationdated; 18.07.2003 had been assessed,by me at ?19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ?17,28,512/-per acre for Category Bland. In Jai Singh'scase {supra), \ had assessedthe fair marketvalueofland in 10 villagesas;under> S.No. Village Name uate of Notification under Section 4

¶1Pooth Kburd

7.8.2000

2.

¶3Holambi Kalan Bawana .

7.8.2000

7.8.2000

¶4:Khera Khurd

11.9.2000 LA.App.No;l99/2.010&comectedmatters• Fair, market value (in lakhs per acre)- ?14.75 , for Category 'A' . ?14.3728 for Category 'B' ^4.75 ^14.75 for Category 'A' ^4.38125 for Category 'B' ^14.835 for .Category 'A' ^4.46413 for Category 'B' •Page 17 of22 ••-1/

¶5Narela. ,2.5.2001 n6.165 . for Category 'A' n5.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B' .

¶7Alipur

22.8.2001 ?16.745 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 , ^16.745 for Category 'A' ne.43811 for Category 'B'

¶10• Sanoth,

7.12.2001 n7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 • n8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 .?18.655

¶15Sanoth

27.1.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' • ?18.94:912 for Category's' ^8.475,39 for Category 'C ,16. Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 ^9.435 fon' Category 'A' ?:18.94912 for Category 'B' ^18.47539 for. Category'C •

21.. In jai Singh's, case (supra) I had also analyzed,the minimum land-ratesenhanced by the Governrrient.frqmtime to time and found the same not to be the ipse dixit of the.. •LA.App.No.'999/2010& cojinectedmatters Government officers and had found not only rationale but a reflection of' urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah Vs. UOl Mn. 2004 IV AD Delhi ,20 Ram Cha rider l/s. UOl. ,11 T- (7Odd] DLT 95 Hukum Sinph Vs. UP! and an unrieported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005Mahender Sinah Vs. UO! & Ors. decided •on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determinedon variousdates betweenthe years 1993 to 1996 and in relationto the minimum pricefixed by the, GovernmentI had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said , decision as under:- 5,0. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also,the various notifications issued, from . • time to time by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated' by me in. para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990minimum price was .^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997i.e. the increaseis ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7• years which gives us a.115.054%increase in 7 years and the averageprice increasewould be 16.436%. The price• rise over the next.l year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and .11.5%for the next year i.e. as of. 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborativeevidence for this would decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gajr^s case (supra), which 1have discussed in para 49 above. . .

¶51, ;l need to elaboratea little more witF] respect to the decision in Gajrafz case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural .land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in paras'9 to 17 . LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . Page19 of22 the Court discussed•the valuation on-the basis of agricultural.yjeldand found that the gross return peracre per annuhi was ,^95,0.00/-for multiple cropped land and having good irrigationfacilities and. thus capitalizedthe land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussingthe second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas i^ncluding potentiality, in para 19 onwardsthe Courtdiscussedthe.matterwith referenceto land prices in adjoining village,Bhorgarh-where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sate instances found that based on the said sale instanciesand giving benefitof industrializationthe land price would Come to ?10,03,364/-per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered,theprices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked but the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' Tu" per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentialityhad been well-factored in when the Government issued the minimum price notificationw.e.f. 1.4.1997,evidencedby the fact that even with respect to sale transactionsthe Court found that as against the. minimum price notified sale instances were highlightingthatthe price was no,03,364/-per acre-. p. The decision in MahenderSinqh'<^ pertaining -to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above highlightswith referencetO'para 28 to 31,ofthe decision., . that.the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential commercial and industrial future exploitation of ' agriculturalland in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality,the same,had not translated into a reality evidencedby the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was . concerned,virtually no developmenthad taken place in village Bawana, and Holambi Kalan and nobody had, exploitedthe potential. As I have already highlightedin . para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the.market actually grows.. The decisions in Gairafs caise and LA.App.N,o;999/20r0& connectedmatters lM Mahender Singh's case highlight -that potentialiliy! translated itself into a reality .between. 1990 and 1997 when, prices rose. by about 16:5% per annum-and thereafter the-i extended • potentiality did not translate . with t'he requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum'. One reason could be that pursuant to iVjaster 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 em|,pirical evidence in the instant "case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied, upon by the land owners, in respect wher^eof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and. 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, .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. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be fl9,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that. 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which; was isold for ^"5,39,690/- and ?70,160/- was paid as starhp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price n7,74,10,9/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002; . , :

¶28In the absence,of any cogent evidence.placed, on record by either parties other than the minimum price notified-bythe Government from time to time, 1 hold that, the Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principleand-has relied upon the correct evide.:nceand has given.the correct appreciations by suitably increasingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between the dates when -minimum price^s were notified and the date of the notification issued under ... . / • ' LA.App.No.'999/2010cS: connectedmatters Page21 of22 Section4of the Land Acquisition.Act and finding no scope to, furtiier eniiance tine compensationor to reduce the same I dismiss ali appealsand cross,objections,whetherfiled by the land ownersor the Union of India, • • • •

¶29Ileavethe partiesto beartheirown'cost. (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) SEPTEMBER19, 2011 , JUDGE mm . A LA.App.No.999/2010iconnectedmattirs ' ' • : . "• ,

$-51 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 243/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus DAL CHAND & ORS Respondents Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG