Union of India v. Chander Mohan & Anr

ORDER % 19,09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludament Reserved On: a uaiist ?n n : , lodgment DeliveredOn: 19^'^September, 2011 + RAJ SINGH LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) _ • . ••• Appellant Through: Mr.B/S.Mann,Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. Vs. UOi&^NOmEa Respondents Through. Mjr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate &||vir.SanjayKumar Pathal<,,IVlr.Sachin Nawani, MrSiddharth Panda and Ms.K K^omudi Kiran,AdvocatesfonR-1 • ! . • • ' . • 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM. 1007/2010.& CM No.15181/2011 LAAPP. 1009/2010,; LA.APP; 1010/2010, LA.APp' No-12865/2011,LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP." 6/2011 & CM No.,6756/2011,.LA.APP. 38/2011- & CM , 41/2011, LA.APP. 89/2011,;LA.APP. 142/2011,. LA.APP. 160/2011, lAAPP. 161/2IIllJ LA APP^ LA.APP. 246/2011,QXAPP. 247^011^Afk^. 248/2011, LA.APP, 29^/2011,M^AtAPP,3.4JI20Ti LA'apP 386/2011, LA.APP. 387/201l' La'^Pp' 407/20n: LA.APP. 406;20lta2p^ (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09'2000 Award No. 06/2002-2003,Village^BhalswaJahangir AND & LA.App.No.999/2,010&connectedmatters -J. + LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APIF 88/2011 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.APP. 216/2011,- LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011 LA.APP,3.46/2011,LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.l5194/20ll 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/Sec. 4 dated 30;07 1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001,Village-BhalswaJahangirPuri) CORAM: HOW'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG • 1. Whetherthe Reportersof locai papers may be allowed ! to see the judgment? ..

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not? , ~

¶3Whetherthe judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIQG. 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 notificationissued later and had-required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the • notificationwhich was issuedearlierin pointof time.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated,in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangirPuri was acquiredpursuant LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . ' ' Page i2 of22 .~L 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 ,17:04.2,001. 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,?2,87,916.6.6 per bigha, which is equivalent to ^13.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value a's of 15.09.2000 was fixed at ^13.82 lakhs per acre. , , : ^

¶3Dissatisfied with the assessm;ent made by' the Land i • ' 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 Rai.Sinah Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or n4,56,963 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 1.4.2000 and the price?13.82 lakhs per acre.' . •LA.App.No.999/2010&comiectedmatters , ' Page3of22

¶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; for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitationof . JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declarationunderSection 5 of the Act issued on 04.08.1998. After following the due process, the Land, Acquisition Collector announced, an. award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at- ^2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalentto ?li:2,0 lakhs per acre. • •

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land owners sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Act. The, Learned Reference Court,.in.the lead matter being lAC No.lllA/2008 titled Chandrawati Vc;. Union ofIndia, assessedthe 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 1^.9.2000i.e. the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoradopting the land rate notified by the Government with effect from •1.4.1997 vide circular,dated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notificationin question was issued on 30:7.1998and'the learned Reference Court granting enhancement @ ii% per annum for the •interregnum period. ; ' , '

¶7The Union of India .as well as. the land ovvners have challenged the assessmentmade by the Learned.Reference LA.App.No.999/2010& connected.matters', Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned above. ' • •• • • • .

¶8On. behalf of the land> owners, justifying high:er compensation, reliance was , placed on the .foTlowing' documentary evidence:-.

(a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide' notification ' . . . dated

16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it . disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase in respect of developed residential and commercial properties owned by L&DO. Relying on , this document, it was argued that in, the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which, is stated to • be close to village Bhalaswa Jahangir Purl, was fixed at ^5830/- 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 I be entitled to enhanced compensation in'sum of ' ^1,17,96,200/-per acre.,

(b) The rate charged by MCD for allotment 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 (a) -^425/- per . square meter and Exhibit; P.W-3/2, a copy :of thfe Resolution No.6.10 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD , ;• . decided to allot the plots in Sanjay'GandhiTransport' ' Nagar @?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying 'on these ^' , LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . • Page5of22 . ' • .document^, 'learned counsel' fcDr the land owners argued that the rate stated; Jii the resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fair market value of,developed land' comes to ^17,19,857/- per a,ere 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 be ?24,7e,592/-per acre.

(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 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying^ . on the brochure of DDA pertaining, to the year 2006, 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 Pun" at a price ranging between X23J2 lakh to ^28.4 lakh,; which according to learned counsel.translates to a price of n4,36,36,363 per acre and dounsel urged that • .suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertainingto ulndevelopedagriculturalland. ' • ,

(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera' Khurd , (.Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land meas.Oring 2-19 bigha was sold @ ?32,40:,300/- on 2,5.04,2001,. learned counsel urged that the price per acre conies , . to ?56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It was ' LA-^PP-^°-559/2010&connectedmatters • Page6of22 -f- <9, I' 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 . V 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 Khushi Ranh in favour, of a society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^8 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land' was in the'revenue estate of . ' village,BhalswaJahangir Pu'ri and thus w^s pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of lancj in the said village as of the daite of the agreement to sell - . i.e. 5.8.1996.

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay ,Poddar. learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India relied on a Sale Deed .dated ,05.06.1996(ExhibitR-2), whereunder 1-03 bigha of land in village Bhalswa.Jahangir Purl was sold at a price of n,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 . .. :notificationunderSection 4! comes to n',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 land for LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters •, Page7of22 •J-I \\ •fixing tine market value of undeveloped agricultural land , having a vast area. Learned counsel also'arguedthat the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed.the fair marketvalue of, the land at a price nnuch 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.266/2008titled 1/?. IJOl &Ann in. which similarargumentsas were advanced with 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 has come out in the depositionof Shri TrilokChand Patwarl) • who appeared as .P\A/-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2Q08titled RalSinqh - lA Union of India \n which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the Al<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 ofvillage Bhalswa JahangirPuri. His testimonywould, reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are. situated,in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villagesSamaipur Badli and Haiderpurare situated i-n,,the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of. village Jahangir Puri. • • • ' ' . • LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters , Page8of22 • . : • '

¶121 may additionally note that the lay; out "plan of •tl^e National Capital Territory of Delhi> published, by the Government of NCT Delhi would reveaf that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl is situated on the eastern side of:G.T;Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. VillagesBaqlli, Samalpur, Libaspur, ' Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development - took place in the'revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of saic) • village was for re-settlement of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the' character of urbanization in the area was of a'kind where • • ' potential price increased due td urbanization, was of a weak " nature. • In,the decision reported as Amar S/nah 1/9. Union of India1998 (V) AD.(Delhi)^81, it was noted that there existeda resettlement colony called Jahangir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the year 1975- •V 76. It has to be rememberedthat the two subject•acquisitions ' •were also for re-settlementof slum and J.J-.CIusters. 14: The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinoh 1/s. UP! ^ . Mn which was reserved oh 12.8.2011 and had yet to be • pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals, w,ere reserved J-, , for judgment has sihce been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011' ! :and I would highlight that, while assessing the fair marketv value of. the land situated in 10 revenue estates ,ih the same • . revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of ' villages.Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth,.Alipur, Narela, Rajiapur Kalan, Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area' LA.App.No.999/2010&conne'ctedmatters " Page9'of22 :;fr v;. • ' ' '• " . ' . " ". .. •'' A ' i •. , • ' '' . , ^ constituted a 'V at ftie point of intersection where G.T.Karnci ,V . Road Jve. NH-1 and Rohtak Road i.e. INIIH-IO biifprcated at a ' :; common point, proceeding in ;,different directioVisr at Sabzi' • Mandl.,,It needs to be highlighted that village Bhaiswajahangir Puri is pytside the. 'V aforesaid and as explainetj 'hereihabove ; V' - •/' V:and abuts towards^he east of NH-1;'' ' '• .; ;'IS-. In:the,appeal relating to t;he sajd lO viilages^whereland'....' ' vyvere acquired pursuant .to different nptlficatipns/eissued from . • ' y ' time;;td time I had dealt,with notificationsissueeS-i'nthe year ^ ' ; V, , . ; :200D, 2001, 2002 andi 2003. In those cases,ieafned dounsel -..'for the;.-1^ owners hac^ relied'upon the sale i'deed .dated , '

25.04.2001. (Exhibit ,PW-15/1) and the . sale deed dated .24.03;-20,00. (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the •same; sale deeds', on V ' •^ ^ ^hich learned" counsel for. the iWnd owners have, placed , reliance upon as,,noted in sub-para

(d) of para 8 hereinabove. : -. ; ^ y: In the,said judgn^entdated 23.,8..2011,.rhave^:disG:areledthese: .I : two sale deeds, for the reasons recorded-in para.Qraphs 21 to ' >23 which a,re:reproduced hereund'er:- ' ' / , 21; The first argument is,.predicated on ;the 2 sale : .deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 whi.ch is dated 25.3.2000, :and the. ; sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4:2001, As ^ . : ' per tbe former, fair market value fqr the former . ' cohies to ^26.75 lakhs per acre .'-and the latter ,@ • ' : ^63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference ./ r . Court has rejected'the 2 sale deied$ as .reliable :• evidence to deterriiine fair, rharket value: of • , agriculturallands, for ail the villages in question on, the reasoning that .the sale deed ,Ex.PW-1/3 was pufcliased by a religious trusti 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: LAGyNo.68/2005'hadiistated , •:: , th^t to-his knowledge the^land was purchased for religious purpose and .was being used fora religious . ' • y - purpose:, Jhe sale :deed Ex.;PW^l/2 has likewise ./ ' • / ,. -LA\App;Ko.999726r0;&.Gonneeted^ffl^ ' Page.10of22 ' - -f- • - s • •. • - • • • ' •• • • , •; •' ' ,v" • VA-been held-hot to be reliable evidence to determine ; . : fair market value: of: agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a; IHlon Government Organization "Chrigtian 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 ofthe organization and is being used . for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As hejd in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) , see 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. isti Rohini&Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC • 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition QWw.^r (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed, which are tendered in .evidenceby virtue. ' of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have ,not to .be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sate deed to deterhiine 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 : ' ^''''^umstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land; An informed buyer would be one who has ' ' studied the market and.has apprised himselfof a|l available land in •the area; has understood the topology ofthe area and the prevailingprices. If a bLiyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he • may pay a much higher price and this would not be I : a good index of fair market value of the lands in the '' area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed -dated

20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court'pertaining to the notification dated •27.1.2003 whererUnderagricultural,land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by, an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesser price i.e. n7,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex;.PW-l/2 and '^28 89 . lakhs per acre.for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds ; LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page11of22 / Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price.and fex^facie destroy each other. • •

¶23Thus, apart from the reasoningof the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, aforie-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 1find that undervarious •awards neariybetween7,000 to 8,0.00 bigha of land . have, been acquiredand when the acquisitionis of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on. sale deeds •havinq . intrinsicevidenceof the tra,,nsactionbeing the result or a fancy bf the buyer.

¶1would be failing not to note an unreported decision. cited by learned • decision™

19.12.2008 disposing,of a batch of appeals lead . :matter being LA.App.No.1.93/2006 deceased) thru !R^ Us. uor^ w JL highlightedthat the sale.deedtherein by which L&T I P^^^hased,8bigha and 9 bilwa 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 ^ good .evidenceof value of land in the area was rejected by the Court and the price in-question,with suitabledeductionon accountof the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instantcases the 2 sale u ^^estion i.e. ,Ex.pW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair marketvalue. Jhe argumentignoresthe reasoning nrthe decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to .38 wherein the Diyision 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 therein was reduced by 1/3the price arrived at wo.uld be the sameas would be price arrivedat with reference to the average rate of the. sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e.-the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010cfe comectedmatters Tage12 of22 J-V-. ; . . •-^ prbduced 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. ^2,15,160/-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 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 pedantic'aily but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treatfed 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 1 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." T .

¶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 Bh.alswa Jahangir Purl.

¶17As regards the agreement to. sell, (Exhibit PW-6/1), the, land situated in village BhalswajahangirPuri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of tl8 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 ^5,70,000/-. • " • • /

18., Now, if the price,, as per the q,,wn showing ,of the land owners was fl5,70,000/-per acre ;as on 01.07^2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • ' ' Page13'of22 . : I;-. difficult to comprehend the abnormally 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 puzzlethat m1996 the price was ^18'lakhs per acre and 7 years .down the line,the price fell to ?15.7 lakhs per acre. I need to highlightthat in paragraph -39 , of its decision, the learned Reference Court, w^hile\ , 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 willing seller and ..without being influenced,by special needs pertaining to a ' • particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale deed a's . ,not reliable evidence Wherefrom fair market value of a large-, , track of land had.to be fixed. • -

¶19I have discussed this issue in my decision dated

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/200.8 lai Sinah Vs. (JO/ ^ Anr i p where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with, evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller•b.eing, wellr . • informed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be good evidence to. d^tesrniinefair market value of a large part of land, being the .fanciful price- , paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have ^'''^scly been extracted by me hereihabovei;.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 [earned-counsel'for the land owners and. concur with the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29.and 30 which are^ /premised on the decisionofthe SupremeCourt reportedas La! LA.App.No.999/2010&Gonnecte'dmatters ' Page14 of22 ' '• • •' •' ^ ,Chand Vs. Union of /ndia 20Q9 {15) SCC 769. Similar is tfie reasoning pertainingto tlie evidence relating,to a,uction rates • of residential plots or flats by DDA.. •

¶21In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 fai Singh l/s. UO! &Qrs,,,|l had extensivelydiscussedthe law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands, case with . • referenceto price at which developed plots were allotted by differentagenciesi.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevantobservations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decisionin MLSingh;scdiSQ 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 ResidentialScheme developed• ,by DDA. Whetherit was 20% or 75%, we do'hot 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 ' ^snclerthis evidence.as.most unreliableto 4etermine the value of land-inthe 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 j would be what would be the value to which the ,y- * buildingpotentialitywould translateitself. .

¶31I hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping in view the observation and the findings, .of the SupremeCourt in Lai Chands 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 I • shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. * ' ' r • , • . • •• LA.App.No.999/2010&comectedmatters ,' Page15 of22 J I

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

¶23I.reiterate 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. .

¶24Pertaining 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 sahne relates to developed plots and on the.parity of ' reasoning in La! Chands case (supra), wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed a,nd discarded with reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for ' Rohini ResidentialScheme,,1 negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned witin Iarg4 tracks of lands,ad-measuringi758^01 bigha and'929.05 bigha. • • , '

¶25From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as P,W-2 in LAC •NO.112A/200.8 it emerges that village Burari is on the east of village Bhalswa jahangir Pun. and indeed the plan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir 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 ,adjoiningvillages separated by 'Outer Ring Road',and LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' ' . ' -Page16 of22 ' I yo. thus the fair market value of land on a particulardate in the two villages would be comparable. 26, While assessingthe fair marl<etvalueof the'landsituated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuant.to notifications dated 24.07.1998and 18.07.2003issued under Section 4 of 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 LA.Appeais, iead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008titled fia/ba/&i9/-v. 1/5. Umnn dflnilia Qrs^ In.thesaid decision,Ihad assessedthe fair marl<etvalue of agriculturalland at ni,60,580.82per acre for CategoryA land, .?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B. land and ?9,28,464.65per acre for Category Cland pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquiredpursuantto notificationdated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at ?19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ?17,28,512/-per acre for CategoryB land. In Jai Sinag/scase (supra), I had assessedthe fair marketvalueof land In 10 vliiagesas;under:- s.No: Village Name Date of Notification under Section 4

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000

2.

¶3Holambi Kalan Bawana

7.8.2000

7.8.2000

¶4Khera. Khurd

11.9.2000 ,LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Fair market value (in lakhs per acre) fl4.75 for Category 'A' ?14.372& for, Category 'B' ?=14.75 ,^14.75 . for Category 'A' ^4.38125 for Category 'B' ?14.&35 for :.Category 'A' ^^14.46413 for ' Category.'B' ' tagel7 of22;, >\ .. '5. Narela

2.5.2,001 ?16.165 for Category 'A' ^15.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 ?16.745 , for Category 'A'' fl6.43811 for Category 'B' '

¶7Alipur

22.8.2001 , ?16.745 for Category 'A' ^16.43811 for Category 'B'^

¶8. ' Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 s ?

16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B' ; 9. Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 ?16.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001. . ?17.295

¶11.Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12ShahpurGarhi . ,23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶13Holambi Kalan ,23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 , ?18.655

¶15Sanoth

27.1.2003 .^9.435 for Category 'A', f 18.94912 for Category's' i ^18.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 -n9.435 . for Category 'A' fl8.94912 for Category 'B' ' ^, f18.47539 for Category 'C

¶27In lai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed the-minimum, landVates enhanced by the Governmentfrom time to time and found the same not to be the ipse dixit 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 l/s. um • Ml, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander l/s. UOi. Ill (2004) •• DLT 95 Hukum Sinph Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005Mahender Sinah I/?. UP! & Qrs. 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 priceVixedby the . . . •: Government I, had highlighted in paras 50 to,53;of the said ' • • decision as under:- • ' ' "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in. theVpreceding 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 iniportantfacts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commehcing from the year 1990. As pf 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.overthe next l .year is by 11.2% and thereafter by fof the next 2 years and 11.5% for the' next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It .shows that due to ufbanization> i . between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for'this would-be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in GairaJs case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above. ... ' • • f ,

¶51.1 need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gajrafs 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 ' > iP7 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of .agriculturalyield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95',000/- 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-including potentiality,.in para 19 onwardsthe Court discussedthe.matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village .Bhorgarh where' FCI Godowns had come up and' based on sale instances found that based^ on the said sale instancesand giving benefitof industrializationthe land price would come to ?10,03,364/-per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then consideredthe prices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out "the mean average figure of ?9,76,121/-per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentialityhad'been " well-factored in when the Government issued the rninimum price notificationw.e.f. 1.4.1997,evidencedby the fact that even with respect to. sale transactionsthe Lourt found that as against the minimum price notified ^lO 'akhs per acre, sale instances were highlightingthatthe price was ?10,03,364/-per acre. P' Sinnh'^ porfpijnjnn tg village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above • S referenceto para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential . commercial and industriaj 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,.virtuallyn.o developmenthad taken place in village Bawana.and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploitedt^he potential. As 1have alreadyhighlightedin 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 caisp and' LA,App.No;999/20r0&connectedmatters. , Page20 of22 . ; .; ,; , • •• , ' ' Mahender . Singh's case highlight that potentiality. ' translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997-when prices rose by about

16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum'and the acceleration,fell to & between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to iviaster Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be dWeloped, 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 d.eeds relied upon by the land owners,,,in • . respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon arid for which 1have 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 ^19,16,040/,-per acre as of 27.1.2003 on, the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was. sold for ^5,39,690/-and f70,160/-was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^.6,09,850/-(?5,39,690/-+ 1^70,160/-) were , spent would, yield the price n7,74,109/-per. acre as of the.date of the sale i;e. 20.5.2002., , ' ^ • ' • 28. In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record > .by either parties other thanthe minimum price notified by the -Government from time to time, 1 hold that the Learned •' ReferenceCourt has rightly adopted the correct'principleand has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciationsiby suitably increasingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between the d&tes when minimum prices were notified and the date of the. notification issued under LA.App.No.999/201.0&connectedmatters •' Page21 of22 .r Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to furtiier enhance the compensation,or to reduce the same i dismissall appealsand cross objections,whetherfiled by the land ownersorthe Union ofIndia. 29, Ileavethe partiesto beartheirown cost -j—r (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) SEPTEIMBER19, 2011 JUDGE mm XA.App.No.999/20I0&oomecfedmatters • Page22 of22-

$-55 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 247/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathal<, Advocate for UOI. versus CHANDER MOHAN & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG