Union of India v. Suresh Kumar & Ors

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. -y-TrN/<-S=-^'3^

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm -rS •A: # . • / '%. IN the HIGH COURT OF DELHI TVT IS!EV^ DELHI . ludament ReservGcihn: W August 7hr7 . ,; ' ludamentDpIh/f^rMpn:. SeptemhRr.7m 7 LA.APP. 999/2010 & • CM No,6549/2011(Gross-Objection) + • ' : : : Appeilaht^ ^ • " Through:.|\^r.B.S.|Vlann,Advocate, Mr.Deepak KhosIa, Advocate and . Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. UOI & ANOTHER ' Through: IM Vs. ^ Respondents r.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate MrSanjay Kumar Pathak/:;i\ir.Sachin Nawani, MrSiddharth Panda and Ms.K Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates-fonR-l AND •4-LA.APP. 1007/2010 & CM No.l518i/2011 ' LA,APP._ 1009/2010, LA.APP; 1010/2010 'LA APP' ' ^,™,'^°-12865/201l/LA.APPr5/20il,.LAL^PP; ' 6/2011 &. Ciyi No.6756/2oil, LA.APP. 38/2011' & CM 41/2011,; LA,APP. 89/2011,-LA.APP. 142/2011,, LA.APP. 160/2011,^LA.APP. 161/2011'LA APP" , 163/2011 LA.APP. 24q/20li, lK.APP. 24l7/2dil^LA'aPp' 248/2011, LA.APP, 375/2011, LA.APP. ,386/2bll> LA.APR. 3:8(7/2011 L/t'APP 407/2011' ,39^/2011, LA.APP. 4d6/201i;;ita;APP; (^ela^ng to ^Notification ^u/Sec^ 4;dated 15.0^:2000 ^ Award No..06/2002-200p,ViIlag4BhaiswaJahangrr;!!:!)^ ;:^ 1001/2010 ;:;^ CM AND LA.AppiNo.999/2010&connectedmatters • - V Page! of22 :.r: + LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. ' 88/20.11 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP'. 132/2011, Li^PP. 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/2011, LAJ\PP. 201/201_1. J^^APP.. 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011,<A.APPrM6/20W 241/2011, LA.APP. 24272011, 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/Sec., 4 dated

30.07.1998 • Award No. 18/2000-2001,Village:-BhalswaJahangirPuri) . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEPNANDRAJOG , . 1. Wlnetherthe Reportersof local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?,

2., To be referred to Reporter or not? •.

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? , • . ; >! PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

¶1I proceed with an apologyto the readerby 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 issued earlier in pointoftime. . .

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated,in the revenue' estate of village BhalswajahangirPuri was acquired,pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' Page2.of22 ' . • to -a notification dated

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of tine Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public jDurpose, 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 Cdllector , announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated ZO.04.2002, , . whereby he assessed the fair market value, of the acquired land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivaleht to ^13.82 lakhs per acre i.e.. fair nnarket value as of 15.09:2000 Was fixed at ^13.82 lakhs per acre. . ^ . 4\

3.. Dissatisfied 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 Vs. . Un/on of India, assessed the ,fair market value of the acquired . \ land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or ^4,56,963 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 bfi 165 days

(g) 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&comaectedmatters - • 'Page3of22 ' -r .. .

¶5Another parcel of land ad-nneasuring 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. 'Rehabilitation of .. JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 • 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 n,1.20 lakhs per acre. • •, • ' : •

¶6Dissatisfied;with the assessment made by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land owners,sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No,lllA/2008 titled ChandrawathV^. Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair marketvalue of the acquired land at ni,46,670/- per, acre. The difference; in the -destination reached is on the same, reason as noted hereinabovepertainingto the notificationdated-15.9.2000i.e. ^ 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 (a) il% per annam 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&connectedmatters -Page4of22 by way of the appeals, and cross objections •mentioned above. ' . '5

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

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

1.6.04.1999 (Exhibit ,PW-4/1), whereby it disclosed its intentionto charge unearned;increase in . respect of developed, residential and comrriercial • properties owned; . by L&DO. Relying on this ,, ; • document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential (and in Azadpur, which, is statjed to : be close to'Village Bhalaswa jahangir Puri, 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 • : - 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 @ '^425/- per r square meter and Exhibit P.W-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005,.whereby MCD decided to allot the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar (a) ?4,50;0/-persquare, metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010&,connectedmatters Page5,of22 . 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 developed land comes to^l7,19,857/-per acre.and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the develppment 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 15.9.2000iwould j(' be ^24,76,592/-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 PDA 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 Purl at a price ; ranging between ^23.72 lakh to USA lakh, which according to learned counsel translates to a prfce of ^4,36,36,363 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 Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land nheasuring 2-19 bigha was sold" @ J^32,40,300/- on 25.0.4.2001,. learned counsel urged that thei 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- " develppmeht cost to determine the fair hiarket 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 Sw.ami Satsang, Vyas at a price'of ?26,75,OO0/-.per acre was also relied'upon,

(e) Learned counsel for the, land owners also relied X, •upon, an Agreement to SelKExhibit PW-6/.l) which was ' executed by one Shri Khus'hi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ nS-lakhs per acre. It was •urged, that the land was in the revenue .estate of' village BhalswaJahangir Puri and thus, was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair hiarket 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 senior counsel appearing'on behalf of Union of ,India relied on a .Sale .Deed dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit,R-2), whereunder 1-03 bigha of land-in •village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri 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 .. notificationunderSection;4 comes to.^^l,94,782per bigha, and thus it vyas argued that since price of similar land is available in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining'.villageor to adopt the price of developed liand for LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters / • Page7of22 . If fixing the market value of undeveloped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the - learned Land Acquisition•collector has assessed the fair marketvalue of the land at a price much higherthan the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference • ' Court.. • . _

¶10It rnay be noted that,when judgment.vygs reservedir| the ^ above .captionedmatters c?n 19^^ August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgment in a batch of land acquisition appeals,lead matterbeing LA.App.No.266/2008titled./a/5//7q^/? 1/?. IJO! &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 V 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 trilokChan.d[HalqaPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008titled ,Rai Sinqh Vs Union•ofhidia in which he.has explained the topologyofthe . area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex:PW-2/lof village Bhalswa jahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur • 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.9,99/20.10&connectedmatters • Page8of22-iiy

¶121 may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capita! 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, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kaian, 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 villageJahangir Puri, post-acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said • village was for re-settle,ment of 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 as Amar Sinah 1/5. Union of .//7Q(^al998(V) AD (Delhi) 45i, it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir Purl in the area which had sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the year 1975-

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

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah Vs. LJO! ^ • Ann which was reserved on 12.8.2011-.and had yet to be ' .pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instaht appeals were reserved for Judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 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-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth,'Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kaian, Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area-LA.App..No.999/2010&connected.matters ' .Page9of22 '. •. r ( (3 constituted a 'V' at the point of intersection where G.T,Kama! Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-IO; bifurcated at.a / common point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi jviandi. 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 NH-1.

¶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-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:- - '

¶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 latter

(a) 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.P.W-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name , of , 'Radha Swami Satsahg' 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 likewise . LA.App.N.o.999/2Q10.connectedmatters • ' • • Page10 of'22 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" a'nd as .per ' • the testimony of P\N-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 1995 (1) see ,717 Land Acouisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. /sti Rohini &,Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC X Mohd. Raufuddin l/s. Land Acouisition Officer ,, ^ • (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced, in •a - sale deed which are tendered in evidenceby yirtue. of Section 5lA of the LA.Act 1894 have not to be 'PSP 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 buyer to 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 / circumstances or the fancy to buy.a particular pidce •, 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 topology of the area .and the prevailing prices. If a , buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he maypayamuchhigherpriceandthiswouIdnot.be 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 where-underagricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist-to an agriculturistfor a much lesser price i.e."?17,74,1,09/- . 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 Ex.PW-l/2 and Ex,PW-l/3, themselves are fiaving intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-fade 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 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 nearlybetween.7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired,and when the acquisitionis of such large an area, it would make all the more a • •reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having .. intrinsicevidenceof the transactionbeing the Vesult of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned- • • being,, the decision dated .,19-12-2008 disposing-of a batch of appeals,,lead matter being LA.App.No.l93/2006 Pratao Sinnh (since deceased) thru IR^ t/^. up, ^ ..L , 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 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 ^ t u '-e-Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-X/B . should be'treated as, the basis,to determine fair m.arketvalue. The argumentignoresthe reasoning in the decision 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, therein was reduced by 1/3^^;.the price arrived at would be the same as would beprice 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.999/2010&coimectedmatters Page12 of22 /3 ''••r :;^V produced by the Government were giving: a [3Fice of ?l,37,00p/- per bfgha and'tlie sale deed under which L&T had purchased the lahcl gave the price " ?3,26,600/- .per bigha and the average would come ^ • to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ' t2,I5,160/- per bigha, if 1/3':'' would be. deducted. .- from the ,Sum' of ;0/26,600/-/ ' it, may ifurther be V highlightedthat in the said, judgment tjne year Of . the sale, was 1993 and the . notification : under . Section 4-of the Land Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.199S, 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 hajd required to be . • .given. • i would highlight onpe 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."' , ^-

¶16For the reasons therein, I rejtect these two sale deeds ih. the present case also as reliable,and good eyidence to determine fair market value of agricuiturarlandi in vlllaafe Bhalswa Jahangir Purl. ' • ,17. As regards the agreennent to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village BhalswaJahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ^8 lakhs per acre.; The iand-owners have also relied upon another sale deed' dated

01.0,7.20,03 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold'at ^n5,70,0007-;, ••• ., ' .1 • •• is. Now/, if the ,price., as,jDer thie own showing of the land, owners was ^15;70,000/^. per acre ;as on 0107.200:3, it-is , tA.App.No..-.999/2010&coimected..matters. Tage13 of.22 ..difficult to compretiend the abnormally high value as per Ex.PW-6/1wh.ich is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is .ns lakhs per acre. It is.indeeda.puzzlethat in 19^6 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the price.fell to ^5.7 lakhs per acre. I need to highlightthat in paragraph^

¶39of 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 willing seller and ..without being influenced by special needs-pertainingto a particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale deed as . 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 datec;!

23.^.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008laiSinah Vs. UO! &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-andthere being a special feature qua.the land and have held the same not to be good evidence to deterrriinefair 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 hereinabpvei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reiterate the same. •.20. . As 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 .ReferenceCourt contained in paragraphs 29 and 3,0 wh.ich are V premised on the decisionof the Supreme Court,reported as La! •LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters , 'Page14 of22 ''a \ s ./I Chand I/5. Union of India 2009 (15) SGC 769. Similar is the' reasoning pertaining to the evidence relating to auction rates • of residential plots or flats by DDA. -• ;2L In my decision d^ted 23.8.2011 in LA.App;No.266/200g; /ai Sinqii Vs. liOi & Qrs., 1had extensivelydiscussedthe law declared by the Supreme Court IK ZaTC^^s case' with referenceto price at which developed.plots were^allottedby diffprentagenciesi.e. DDA and DSIDG. Relevantobservations^ and fihdihgs in para 29 to 31 of the decision in;iaiSinaUs.case are extracted hereunder:- 2Q. Now, we' do .not have evidence as to what Was ' tbe extent of plotted land sold by DSIDG or DDA with ,. reference to, the Bawana Industria.rEstate developed, , py, DSIDC and Nareia ResideritialScherne developed ; by DDA. Whetherit was 20% or 75%, we do not know •^ The inchoate evidence has resulted lil the. same - \ V factors, being 3 in, number which were noted by the Supreme Court in'case (supra), which - render this evidenceas most unreliable,todetermine - the value of land in the subject cases. . . '

¶30Itis.no doubl: true, as held even by the learned Reference Court, .that with the develophi-ent of Bawana Industrial.Area, Rdhini Residential Scheme . .and Narela ResidentialSchenie;the subject lands had • ' acquired a. building :potentiality; but the question. .would be, .what would.be ,th6 value to which the building.potentiality would translate itself.-^ ' • ; '

¶31I hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping ' m view the observation and the findings ;of the- .• SupremeCourt in case (supra) has rightly. rejected said evidence as reliable.- On the issue of potentialityreiating 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. ^ - V . LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • Page15 of22- . '

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chands casp (supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data was nneaningless and was tod inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be ' *• crystallized. . ^ . ' • ' 23. . I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCP ... 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 Lai Chands case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed -.and discarded with' reference to village Rithala where lands were aqquired 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 P\A/-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 Jahangir Purl and Burari are separated by the outer ririg 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.&connectedmatters • ' ' Page16 of22 r r) r- • ? thus the. fair market value of land on a particulardate in the two villages would be corriparable.

¶26• While assessingthe fair marketvalueofthe land situated m:villageBurari, which was acquired pursuantto notifications , dated 24.07.1998 and-18.07.2003issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, I had considered the material on record, I.e. the evidence in my decision •pronouhGed on.

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being Li.A. Appeal No.971/2008titled Raiba!& Vs. Union nf inHi^ Qr^ 'n the said.decision,Ihad assessedthe f^ir marketvalue of agriculturalland at m,60,580.82per acre,fo^ CategoryA land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ^9,28,464.-65per acre for Category Cland fD^ertaining to thP notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuantto notification dated, 18.07.2003 had been assessed,by me af ^19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ^7,28,512/-per acre for Category Bland. Singh's {supra), \ had assessedthe fair marketvalueofland in 10 villagesas under:- S.No. •1.

2.

3.

¶4VillageName uate of Notification under Section 4 Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 Holambi Kalan Bawana

7.8.2000

7.8.2000 Khera Khurd

11.9.2000. LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Fair market value (in lakhs pei^ acre) ^14.75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B' ^14.75: n4.75 for Category 'A' ^14.38125 for Category 'B ^14.^835 for .Category 'A' ,^14.46413 for ."^CategoW 'B' . Page 17 of 22 . •< .r" •H-i-ir

¶5Narela

2.5.2001 fl6.165 , for Category 'A' ns.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 f16.745 for Category 'A' ^16.43811 for Cateqory 'B'

¶7Alipur

22.8.2001 ?16.7.45 for Category 'A' fl6.43811 for. Cateqory 'B' '

¶8Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 ?

16.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Cateqory 'B' ,

¶9Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 f16.745 for Category 'A' U6,43811 for Cateqory 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?i7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ^8.655 ,14. Alipur

23.5.2002 n8;655

¶15Sanoth - 27.1,2003 ?19.43;5 for Category 'A' fl8.94:912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Cateqory':C' '

¶16Rajapur Kalan .27.1.2003 ^19.435 for Category'A' n8.94912 for , Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Cateqory 'C {: in ]ai Singh's case (supra) I had also; analyzed the minimurn land rates enhanced,by the Governmentfrom time to time and found the same not to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.999/2010&cojinectedmatters Page 18 of 22 , Government officers and had found not only,rationale, but a . •. , reffection of urbanization impacting such, increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Ga/ra/ S/nah Vs. UO! & Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah Vs: UO! and an uhreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah Vs. UO! & Ors. dpridpd 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 niinimumpricefixed by the 'GovernmentI had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said; decision as under:-"50. 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 veryimportantfacts 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 nO lal<hs per acre as of 1.4.1997lie. the increaseis ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7^ years which gives us a 1,15.054%increase in7 years and the averageprice increasewould be 16.436%..the price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafterby ' 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 corroborative evidence for this would / be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gafrafs case,(supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above. . . -

¶51I need to elaboratea little more with respectto the : decision in GajraJs 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 ' .-.r the Court discussed,the valuation on the basis of agriculturalyield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was, ^95,000/- for hnultiple 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^ onwards the Court discussed the;matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village.-Bhorgarhwhere FCI Godowns .had come up and based on .sale instances found that based oh the said sale instancesand giving benefit of industrializationthe land price would come to no,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 T9,76,121/- 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 minimum price notificationw.e.f. 1.4.1997,evidencedby ^he fact that even with respect to sale transactionsthe Court found that as against the minimum price notified ^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlightingthat the price was no,03,364/- per acre. • in MahenderSingh's ca.sp, pertaining, to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above I.? 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 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-thattill 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.No.999/2010.c&comiectedmatters • . •Page20of22 • . . 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' 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. 'j- . respect whereof.the learned Reference Court has. given K " good reasons not to rely upon and for which Ihave 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 RajapurKalan 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 agriculturaMands .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 isold for ^5,39,690/-and f70,160/-was paid as stamp duty would • , mean that ^6,09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + .^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.

¶28In 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 principleand' has reli.ed uppn the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to'make ujD the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010&connected'matters•, Page21 of22 .,3^- Section4of tMe Land AcquisitionAct and finding no.scope,to furthier enhance tiie compensationor to reduce the same J dismiss ail appeais and cross objections,whetherfiled by the land ownersorthe Union of India.

¶29Ileavethe partiesto beartheirown cost. —i—T ) (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) SEPTEMBER19, 2011 JUDGE mm •LA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmatters Page22of22'

••y-' ' r $-48 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 240/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus SURESH KUMAR & ORS Respondents Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MRJUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG