Union of India v. Bhoop Singh Decd Thr Lrs & Ors

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. -t—;•

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. y SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm

1., I f • 1 "1; "v.,-) % ' • rc/ THE HIGH Ct)Mmr OF DELHI ^ Ji;Jdqment Reserved On-ig^h Ahanc^f-'ymi ' - JudgmentDeHveredOn: 1^'^September,2011 LA.APP. 999/2010 & GIVI Mo.6549/2011(Crqss-Ot^ectidn) Appellaint:^^ ^^L9U9h: ,Mr..B.S.Mann,Advocate ; , . Mr.DeepakKhosIa;Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi,, Advocate. uor& another Through; M Vs. ••• Respondents r.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Sachih Nawani, Mr.SiddharthPanda and Ms.K Kaomudi Kjran, Advocates^fonR-l. AND •; , M , 961/201.0, , LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM I/? LA.APP. 1007/2010&CM NOil5181/2011 -Tn^ LA.APP.- 1010/2010 LA.APp' &CM No.12865/2011,LA.APP; 5/2011, lA.APP 6/2011.,& CM No,6756/2011, LA.APP 38/2011^ & CM ^-APP.41/2011,LA.APP.89/io,li?ilL™- 142/2011,, LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP 161/2011' IA APP ^ 24#Pii;LA.Z.: :m;app:^ ^ 298/2011,-lX;APP. 347/2011/ LA.APP i75/2011, L/\.APP. 386/2011, LA.APP 387/201l' LAAPP' 4o7/2oii: la-app.Jo6/2on•^ (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 1^ nQ9hhh \;c Avyard No.06/2002-200^, • AND -- LA;App.No;999/20.10&icoimected'matters .'^agel of22 r. , ; . l--- ' i i-t A- •-H. LA.APP. 57/2011 & CIVI No.12871/2011, LA.APP,

8.8/2011 LA.APP. 130/2:011, 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^__2^.2Z20^^ 243/2011, LA.APP.^ ,244/2011,^^^^:X^. 245/^U^ LA.APP. ' 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2^)TX~t?WP==H^7^1&CM No.15194/2011, LA,APP.349/2.011& 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. 18/2000-200i,Village-BhalswaJahangirPuri) CORAM: ; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOiS

¶1Whetherthe Reportersof local,papers may. be ailowed to see the judgnfient?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

3.. Whether the judgment should be reported-in thei' 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;pointof time; but the reason Is that the learned.,counsel for the land owners had a'ddressed' arguments With respect to the notification issued later"and had required price to, be suitably reduced pertaining to the notificationwhich was issuedearlierin pointof time. 2: Land measuring 75.8-01 bigha.situated in the revenue estate ofvillage BhalswaJahangirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 2 of22 ~r to a . notification dated

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, nannely,"' 'Rehabilitation of J] Cluster'. This-was followed'.by a declaration under Section. 6 of the said Act Issued on 17.04.2001. After, following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, whereby he assessed the .fair market value of the acquired' land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to n3.82 , lakhs per acre i.e'. fair niarket value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed . , at ^13.82 lakhs per acre. . ^ , •

¶3. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisitipn Collector, the land owners sought reference upder Section 18 of the said Act; The Learned Reference.Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.112A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs. . U/7/0/7 of India, assessed the' fair market value of the acquired.^ , . land,at ?3,03,534 per bigha or ^14,56,963 per acre. • / ,

4., It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land • Acquisition Collector as well as the Learned Reference Court, . while assessing the fair market value of the..acquired land,. . • ; adopted the minimum price for agriculturalland 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 Or.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition^ Act., was issued on

15.09.2006',' 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 pric^?13.82 lakhs per acre.' •' .• . ' LA.App.No.999/2010&comiectedmatters . Page3of22 ,, .5. Another 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.purposei.e. •'Rehabilitation.of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a' declarationunderSection 6 of the. Act issued on 04.08.1998. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collectorannounced an award bearing No.l8/2000-0l'dated 12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market value, of, the acquired land at ?2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalentto ^11.20 lakhs, per ' •^ " acre. • ' ' • - • •' ; ;

6., Dissatisfied 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 ChandrawP^H l/^r 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 15.9.2000i.e. •^ learned,LandAcquisitionCollectoradopting.theland, 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 .(§) ,11% per annum for the, ' interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as well as the land owners,have . the assessment made by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' Page4of22- . Court by way of the appeals 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

16.04.1999 (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 oh 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 ^2,35,92,400.92per ' acre and it was Urged that if 50% i^.- deducted • • • ..towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced cohipensation in sum of v, " ' , . ^1,1.7,96,200/-per acre. • ^ , .(b) The rate charged by MCD for, allotment of ^ ,. commercialplot in SanjayGandhiTransport,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 ofthe - , Resolution N0..6IO dated 21.02.2005, whereby>MCD . decided to allot the jDlots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar (3) ?4,500/-per square metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these- , , LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page5of22.' " • docurnents, learned., cdunsel for the land owners argued, that the rate stated in' the'' resoltltiohs . • aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence thatfair market value of'.developed . ' land comes to?17,19;857/-,per acre arid it was urged • that even if 50% deduction is made on accbuntof the- .' development costs, for undeveloped ;jands, 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 ?24,76,592/-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 DDA pertaining to the year 2006, it vyas.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 ^28.4 lakh, whi.ch accordingto learned courisel translates to a price of • • ^4,36,36,363 per acre, and counsel .urged that suitable deduction could be effected therefrorri pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land-.

(d) ' Relying on a sa'I.e deed of village Khera -Khurd' (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring-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 .f^ll,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA,App.No.999/2010&coimec'ted'matters • . \ Page6of22 ' •. /i- . contended that this sale deed should be relied uporr, after making a reasonable deduction, -towards ' development cost to determine the fair market value : ' of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jafiangir 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 Swanni Satsang Vyas at ' a price of ^26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon.' . •

(e) Learned .couhsel for the land owners also relied . • , upon an Agreement.to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was executed by one Shri Khushi'Rarp 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, market value of land in., the said village as of the date, of the agreement .to sell . • ' , .

5.8.1996. . • . • , • V .9. Per 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 Vat a price of ^1,40,000and urged that even if 12% appreciationper.annum is to be given; on said value, the price as on the date of the •; . notificationunderSection4comes tb n,94,782per.bigha,and . thus it was argued that since price of similarland is aVailab.le, in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developeQl Hand for • . la.App.No.999/201.0&connectedmatters "• Page7of22 :// . 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 marketvalue of the, land at a price much higherthan the one • reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned. Reference,. Court. ' . • • ' ,

¶10It may be notec^that when judgmentwas reservedin the above captioned matters,on 19^'^ August,7011, decision had been reserved for judgment in a batch of land acquisition. appeals,I'ead matterbeing LA.App.No.266/2008titled , lA. uo! &Anr. ]^ which similarargumentsas ..were advanced-with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and, learned senior counsel Sh.Sa.njay 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 Trilok [HalqaPatwari). who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No,112A/20d8titled Rat Sinqh 1/5. Union ofIndia in whichhe hasexplained the topologyofthe area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex.PW-2/1of. village Bhalswa JahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur and .Libaspurare situated,in the North,,villages,Mukhmelpur. and Burari are situated in 'the East, villages.Sari^iNrBadli and • Haiderpufare situated in the West and villages Bharola and .• . Sarai Pipalthalaare situated in. the South, of. village.Jahangir Puri., ' LA.App.No.P^P/l.OlO.&.coi-mectedmatters, ' ' ' Page8o.f22 •IV

¶12I may additionally note th^t the lay out plan 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.Karnai Road i.e. National Highway No,l. VillagesBadii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the. western side of National Highway No.1. • , .13. It 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-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 to urbanization was of a^ weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah Vs. IJhinn nf • ' India 1998 (V) AD {DeM)A81, it was noted that there existed a : resettlement colony called Jahangir Puri. in the area which had sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the year 1975-

¶76It has.to be rememberedthat the two subjectacquisitions were also for re-settlement of,slum and J.J;Glusters. , 14. The decision in LA;App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah -I/5. UOl & 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 pronouncedby me oh 23;8.2011y. and I would highlight that while assessing the fair market-value of the land situated in 10 revenijeestates in the same , revenue districti.e. North-WestDelhi being revenue.estate of, villages Pooth Khurd, 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.999/2010&connectedmatters Page9of22 coris'tituted a 'V at the point :of intersection where G.T.Karnai Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a ; common point/ proceeding in ;differeht. directions, at Sabzi iviandi. It needs tb be highlighted that village Bhaisw'aJahangir 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 defed 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 pwners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-p^ra (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 ^63.478: lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds-as reliable • evidence to. determine fair market vafue 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 I 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.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • Page10 of22 • ' been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural' lands oh the reasoning it was .purchased by a IMon 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 1995. (1) see .717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vk isti Rohini&Anr. (Refer para 6) and 200,9 (14) SCC , ~ 369 iviohd. Raufuddin \/s: Land Acquisition Offir^r , " . . (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a, . sale,deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section SlA 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 inforhied willing buyer would pay-.to an equally wel.l informed-seller . • without being influenced, by any special ' '• '^''''^u'T^stancesor the fancy to buy a particular pieice ' of land. An informed buyer would be one wlio has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in. the area; has understood "the . id ' ' ' • topplogyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he ( I may pay a niuch higher price and this would .not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the ' area. I would be failing if1do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated

20.5.2002, which was accepted by the. learned ' ' ReferenceCourt pertaining,tothe notificationejated

27.1.2003 where-underagricultural-landin village • • Rajapur Kalah 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 n •Ex.P,W-l/2 ,and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence, of the fancifurprice d'hd ex-facie ; . destroy each other.- . ' v ,'

¶23Thus, apart from the reasoningof the learned . ; , Reference Court, with which Tconcur, afore-hoted reasons in para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the' 2 sale deeds, would advisably not be good evidence..wherefrdm fair • market value of subject lands can be. determined and more so for the reason Ifind that undervarious awards nearlybetween7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land . have been acquired and when the acquisitionis of . such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds havina intrinsicevidenceof,thetransactionbeing the result ' . . of^a fancy,of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned decision dated . ,

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead '- matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh u //?c Us. UP! nrc, It .1. 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 • V 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 deduction on account of the .parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instantcases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW,-l/3 • ^ mnrt t-I to-determine fair • fho 3'^gLJ'^entignoresthe reasoning. mthe decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench,.did not accept the • value.in.thesale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value; but found that if.the price'• would 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.999/2010&(jormectedmatters ' Page12 of22 ¥ produced by the Government were giving a price of ^1,37,000/- per bigha and tlie sale deed under whicfi L&T had purcliased 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. f2,15,1.60/- per bigha,-if 1/3'"'' would be'deducted from the sum of ^3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under . Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995 and

16.11.1995 and . the • Court. determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the.Teasoning 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. requii"ed . to be : given. 1 would hi.ghlight 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 evid^ence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting ~ fair market value."

¶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 Purl. .

¶17As regards the, agreement,to seir (Ekhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village BhalswaJahangir Pun has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ?18 Jakhs per acre. The land : owners have also relie.J upon another sale deed dated.

01.07.2003 whereunder4-fl6 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ^5,70,000/-. . . '

¶18.Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^5,70.,000/- per acre as on 0l'.07.2003, it is LA.App.Nd.999/2010&connectedmatters . ' • .•Page13 of22 difficult to comprehend the abnprmally 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 in 1996 the price was^lS 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, - while examining Ex.P\/V-6/l has opined that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between ah 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 as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value.of a large track of land had to be fixed. .

¶191 have discussed this issue in my decision dated

23.8.2011 in LA.App.N0.266/2008 lai Sinah 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 and there being a special feature,qua the land and have held the sahie not to be good evidence to determine fair market value of a. large part of land, being the fanciful price ,• paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have already beeri extracted'by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision; I reiterate the same. •

¶20As, regards, auction; rates of developed plot of land . situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, I do not find • any substance in the, arguments of the learned.'counsel for the- , land owners and concur .with the decision of ,the teamed Reference Court contained in paragraphs '29 and 30 which are premised,onthe decision"ofthe SuprenieCourt reported La/ • LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters , Rage14 of22 , Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is tlie '"^^soning pertaining to the evidence relating ,;to'auction rates of residential Plots or flats by DDA.

¶21In my .decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No;266/2008. (ai Singh Vs. UOi & Ors.: I had extensivelydiscussed the law declared by the Supreme 'Court in M-CMz^s case with" referenceto price at which developed plots were ^Hotted by differentagencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevantobservations .and findings in para 29 to 31 ofthe decisionin iaiSingh's case are,extracted hereunder:- ' • . . '' we do not have evidence as to what was- ' - th^ extent of plotted land sold by. DSIDG 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 not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same' \ . - factors, being 3 in number which.were noted by the Supreme Court in Lai Chand's case (supra), which r^f^dsr this evidence as most unreliable to determine • , , the value of land in the subject cases. - . . ' 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,potentialitywould translateitself. - ,

¶31I hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping in view, the observation and the findings of the SupremeCourt in Lai Chand^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. ' ; • LA.App.No.999/20i0&coimectedmatters • ' 'Pagel5of22 -ttTw

¶22Highlighting' that -in La! Chancfs case (supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data-was rheariingless and was too inchoate wherefrphi -fair market value-could. beV ;• crystallized. '

¶23I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at:which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport fsiagarand price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be ' irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land. 2A. Pertaining to price notified' by L&bO for .charging, unearned increase ^when .lease-hold' property under, L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state ' that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning, in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of , evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with , reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for Rohini ResidentialScheme, I negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks' of lands ad-measuringi 758.01 ... • bigha and. 929.(35 bigha. • ' -

¶25From the topology of the area and. as per.the testimony ^ . =of Trilok Cha,nd (Halka Patwari) who appearedas PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008 it 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. Bhaisw^ Jahangir Puri and Burari are separated by the outer ring roaid as We travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the. Tibetan Re-settlement ' colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by.'Outer Ring.Road' and... LA.App.No.99$/2010&connectedmatters ' , .• Page16 of22 f "• thus the fair market value of land On a particulardate in the two villageswould be comparable. ' .

¶26Whileassessingthe fair marl<etValueofthe land situated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuantto ndtlflcations 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 t_A.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal I^Jo.971/2008,titled' Rajba!&nr.; |/s. Union r^fInrli. Qrs^ In the saiddecision,ihad assessedthe fair marl<etvaiue of agriculturalland at ni,60,580.82per acre for Category-A, land, ?10,44,522.73 per-acre,for Category B land and ^9,28,464.65per acre for CategoryCiand pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquiredpursuantto notification dated 18.07.2003 had been asstesed by me at ' ?19,20,568/-per acrefor CategoryAiand and ?17,28,512/-per : B 'and. in lai Singh's(supra), I had assessedthe fair mari<etvalueof iand in 10 villagesas under:- S.No. Village Name

¶1Pooth Khurd

2.

¶3Holambi Kalan' Bawana

¶4Khera Khurd Date of Notification under Section 4 Fair market value (in laklis per acre) .

7.8.2000

7.8.2000

7.8.2000

11.9.2000 ^14; 75 for Category'A' m.3728 for Category 'B' n4.75 tl4.75 for Category 'A' .^4.38125 for Category 'B' ^14.835 for .Category 'A' ' ^4.46413 for Category 'B' LA.App.No.999/2010&-connectedmatters •?/ . 5.-, • _ IMarela

2.5.2001 . . fl6.165 for Category 'A' ?15.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi.Kalan

22.8.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B' :

¶7Alipur

22.8.2001 f 161745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B'.

8.- Holambi Khurd | 22.8.2001 ^

16.745 for Category 'A' m ne.43811 :for Cateqorv'B',

¶9RajapurKalan

22.8.2001 ^"16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B''

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12ShahpurGarhl , 23:5.2002 n8.655'

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ^18.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15• Sanoth

27.1.2003 ,^19.435 . for, Category'A' ?18.94912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for: Category'C '

16.. Rajapur Ka an /

27.1.2003 ^9.435 for Category 'A' ns.94912 for Category 'B •• - . ^8.47539 for Cateqorv 'C In .lai Sinqh's case .(supra) 1 had also analyzed the minimum 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, . ( /s • ny-Governmentofficers 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 Sinoh V^. lini /^. Arij\, 2Q04 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. IJOI. m

(2004) DLT 95 Hukum SinQh Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005MahenderSinah Vs. UQ! & Ors. decided' on 11.5.2006wherein based on sale deeds and.otherevidence land price was determinedon variousdates betweenthe years 1993 to 1996-andin relationto the minimum pricefixed by the Government1had 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 notificationsissued 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 comniencinq,, from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990minimum price was' t4.65 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'in7 years and : , the averageprice increasewould be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and.thereafterby ^ 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 yea,r 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 1have discussed in para 49 above. . , . . ;

¶511need to elaborate a little more with' respect to the decision in Gajrais case. Discussing the' evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi K.alan as of 15.11.1996, in paras^9 to 17 : LA.App;No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page19 of22. rrTTT the, Court discussed the' valuation, on the' basis of agriculturalyield and fo,und that the gross return per acre per annurh was^95,000/r for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation.facilitiesand 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 Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale instances found that based, on the said;.saleinstancesand giving • benefit of 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 datefi 1.4.1997 and thus worked, out, the mean ' ' average figure of 9,76,121/- per acre for Category .'A' ' - .

1.21/- per acre for Category.'BMands. 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-thateven with respect tO' sale transactionsthe Court found that,as against the minimum price,notified ur ,lakhs per acre, sale,instances were - highlightingthat the.pricewas no,0,3,364/-per acre. .^2. 1"he decision in MahenderSingh''^ case, pertaining ... to village Bawana, referred to,: by me in para 49 above highlightswith referenceto para 2.8 to 31 of the decision: that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into - account by the Court.which, was projecting,residential, V commercial and industrial future exploitation of ^9'''culturalland,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 evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date • ^ of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned,virtually ho developmenthad taken place in •• - village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had , exploitedthe potential. As 1have 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 case and. , LA.App.No;999/2010&connected'matters Page20 of22' • .n)l 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 potentiaiity-did not translate , . with the requisite momentum'and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% peranhum. ,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 availalDilityof developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated. - ' V

¶53The empirical evidence. in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in , respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given , good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given . -further.reasons in paras 21 and 22 herein^bove for not relying upon, .being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair niarket value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon. . by, the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kaian,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 isoid for ^5,39,690/-and ^70,160/-was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/-(?5,39,690/-+ 1^70,160/-) were spent would yield, the price fl7,74,109/-per acre as of ^ the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.20.02. ' -

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than the minimum ppce notified by the Government fronh time, to time, I hold thaf the Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principleand has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by. suitably increasing'the price to make up the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and: the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010&coiineetedmatters ' '• ,Page21of!22 v Sect,OR 4of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to further enhance the compensationor to reduce the same I dismiss all appealsand cross objections,whetherfiled by the land ownersorthe Union Of India;

¶29•'the partiesto beartheirown cost. (PRADEpPNANDRAJOG) SEPTEMBER19, 2011 JUDGE mm LA.App.No.999/2010^connectedmatters '; . '' Page22 of22 "•

$-53 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 245/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with l^lr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus BHOOP SINGH DECD THR LRS & ORS Respondents Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG