Union of India v. Surinder Singh & Ors

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm * Ilsl THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ' /udoment Reserved On: 19/:''Aunnc;t 9m i judgment Delivered On: September. 2017 + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH ... ^ . Mr.B.S.IVlann, Advocate' . Mr.Deepak'khosIa, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. V; - • • Vs. •/ UOI.&aNC^ER v.;: Respondents : : , : Through;.Mjr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate . ' " - , ' &: Mr.SanjayKumar l=*athak, MrSachin. NpwanI, Mr.Siddharth P^nda and Ms.k Kaoniudi Kiran, Advocates fonR-l . ,i AIMD : ' =+ • LA.APP. 9&I/2OIO; , LA.APP. 1001/2010: CM' IAADD1007/2010 &CM Nb.15181/2011 LAAPP. 1009/2010,1 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 No.6740/2011,LA.APP.j41/2011, LA.APP 89/2011 LAAPP .142/2011,.LA.APP. 160/2011, li\.APP "3/2011 LA.APP, 246;/201i;LA.APP, 2^11,' '^.APP; 248/2011, I_A.APP, .29B/2Oil, LA.APP 347/2011 LAAPP ' 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 LA.APP 387/201^tAftpP to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 & Award.No. 06/2002-2003,Viilage-BhalswaJahangirm^i) ' and . ; LA.App.No.999/2010c&.eonnectedmatters " Page1of22 + LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011; LA.APP. 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/20X1, La.APP. 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/2011, LA.A^. 201/2011, LA.APP. 20212011, 240/2011, LA.APP. :241/2011,Q^.APP.242/20113^,APP.243/2011, LA.APP. 244/2011, J3205PP. 245/5011,, 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-Bhalswajahangir Purl) GORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG 1> Whetherthe Reportersof Ideal papers may be allowed to see the judgment? .

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

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported.in the Digest? ' , : PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

¶11proceed with an apologyto the reader by referringto a notification issued later in point of tihie 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 earlierin pointoftime. -

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue, estate of village BhalswajahangirPurl was acquired pursuant• LA.App.No.999/201d&connectedmatters • j^age2of22 I .:tG a notification dated 15v09.20Q0 •issued^ under'Section 4 of ^ , the Land:Acquisition Act 1894,'for a public purpose, .namelyi, . , 'RehabilitatianofJJ CIiister'. This^wasfollowedty a dlclaratioil^ , junder SectiDh 6 of the said ^Act issuefi on 17.04.2001. After ' foltowing 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' Viand at •?2,87,916;66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ?13.82' - lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed .at ?13.82 lakhs per acre. . ' . . v

¶3Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land: ; ^ . Acquisition Goilector, the land owners sought reference under / Section; 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference-Court, in : ^ the lead matter, being LAC No.11:2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs. .•Union of India. \hssess&6the fair market v^luepf 1}he;/.acq6iredi ' land at ?3,0.3,;534per bigha orm,56,9.63'per acre; , k; 4; , It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land •• • AcquisitionCo)lectoras well as the Learned Reference Count, .while assessing/the fair market value of the, acquired lahd;,.' ' .' adopted the miramum price for agriculturallahd.fixe^by the '• ,, Governmentas on 01.04;2000,^'notified vide\Circulardated , ^ 11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as .the iearheid Land .Acquisition Collector,,while-\assessihgthe .compensatiOT did not grant a.pi5reciatipn for the-period from: .01.04.2000 •till,rthe'date. notificatibn, under Section .4 of the Land Acq;Uisition"Act' was issued on ,15.09)200,0,1but th^' ^learned: Reference Court granted appreciation fdr^the said , period of 165 days 12% per a.hnu,'m with reference to the • base date 1.4.2000and the price?13;82 lakhs p^r acre.' • ' / ' • LAApp.No.999/2010.&connectedmatters ;• ' , : , Page3.of22. ,1;

¶5Another parcel of landxad-m^easuring 929^05 bigha,.: • situated in the/same revenue estat^ Vof village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notificationissued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.199&,fbr the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitationof JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declarationunderStoioni6 of the Act issued on 04.08.1998. After followirig the dueT ,\ 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 t2,33,333 per.bigha.which is equivalentto fll;20lial<hsper acre.:' ' •; ' • • •,- ' / ' ' • ^ •. :. 6. dissatisfied.with the \assessn.3ent' made by -^Xhe Land . ^ . AcquisitionCdllector,the land owners sought referenceundei" Section 18 of the Act. l^he Learned JReferericeCourt, ^in the • , lead ,matter being LAC ^0.111^^2008 titled : Uh/dn o^/nc/h,assessedthe fair marketvalue•of:the'acquired •: \;iand at ?11"46^670/- per acre Jhe/ difference;in the ' ,destination.reached, is on the same reason is noted^ • •: hereinab'ovepertainingto,the notification.dated 15.9.2000i.e. the learned;Land AcquisitionCollector-adoptingthe -iahd rat0: .. • notified by the Government with effect from 14,1997 vjde circulardated 25:7.1997 and ignoring:that tK^ notifitatibriin ' question was issued on 30:7.199&and^the learned Reference' • :' • Court granting enhanGement-11% per annum • interregnum period.' ' • , ; ' • ' 7, The Union of India as well as the land owners haye ; challengedthe assessmentmade by the :Learned Reference " .LA.App.NQ.999/2010&comectedmatters ; ; Page4of22 ~ •' Court by way of the appeajs and cross objections rnentioned^ , .. ' above.. . " ' V ''

¶8On . behalf of the land,, owners, justifying higher ;Conipens:ation, reliance , was -placed :. on .. the •; ToNowiiig- ; ' ' docunnentary evidence:-' y f • (a? Jh;e rate notified by thfe L:&DO vide^notificatibn .dated

16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it •. . .. displdsed its intention to charge unearned increase in ; , .respect of .developed residential and . commerGial- , ' ; V • properties owned' by, L&DO. • Relying on-' this - 7 : docLiiment,Jt, was argued that in';th.e.y^ar 19^^ •.v r • ; .rate df residential land in Azadpur, whichls stated'to- ^ \ ' be close to village Bhalaswa Jahahgir Puri',.'wasjfixeid at t583Q/- per scfuar^ meter dr"t235,92;400:^fcper '! - /. acre and it/was urged that if; 50% is deducted : • towards developrinentcost, 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 GandhiTransport Nagar, in. . terms of the Resolution No.705 dated

23.11.1987 ; (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD ,,decided to aliot :; developed plots to the transporters (3) ^425^^:per '; square meter and Bchibit PW-3/2, a cdpy of the >• :/ Resolution.No41C)'dated21.02,2005,/whereby MCD/ • , decided to,allotthe plots,in Sanjay GahdMTranspb ;. ., Nagar @?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good .evidence. , Relying on :th.iese, ••LA.App,No.99$/2010&.coimecte^ • Page5of22'; documents, leamed' counsel for. the land owners . argued 'that the. rate' stated^ in/the ;resolutions . afqrehoted:,^which'wasapR%^ year 1976,, / , wpulx^ evipleriGethat-faFirmarket value of developed land comes to -tl7,19;;857/- per acre and it wa$ Lirged. ; : • that, even if 50% deduction is made on account 0:f the • • .development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value .would coitie to; ^8>59;928/-:per;adre in : • the. year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per ./ •annum, the fair market vglue as of 15.9.2000 wbuld ?24,76,592/-per acre.; \ - (c) Learned counsej for the^ land , owners ,^also .placei reliance on the auction:record of plots in Rahinj; ResidentialScheme 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 plmth:areaof'69 scftjare . irhetre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Purl at a price •. racing between'^23.7 lakh-to-^28.4 lakh, which . ' ; . according to, learned counsel translates to-a jDrice of. ^14,36,36,363' per acre and Go:unsel urged that ; ;, suitable deduction could be; effected therefrom • , * pertaining to. undeveloped/agricultural land. . • (d)^ Relyingpn a saLe deed of village Khera:;.k^^ (.Exhibit PVy-l,5/l);whereunder land measuring 2-19 ,' . bi^^ha was sold @ ,,^32,40,300/- on: 25.04.20:01, ; learned counsel urged that the price per acre cpimes..: > • to ?56,93,163/- or^ll,86,169/- per bigha. It ;was ' - LAApp.N6^99/2010&coimectedmatters • . . ' Pige6of22 . V- • ' ' cantended that this Sale deed slidiiid be\relied,ui3bn, - ; , • ' • after ,making. a. reasonable /deduction,;.towards development:^ost to deteipihe the fair rharket-yaiue; ^ of undeveloped agricultural, land in viHage Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. Another-sale deed dated •24.03,2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring :• 4-16 bigha situated in the. revenue estate: Of village \ • Mamurpurwas sold to Radha Swami Satsang vi^as at a price of ?2;6,75,000/r per acre Was also relied upon, r

(e) Learned,counsel for the land owners also relied , :; . upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-e/i) yvhkh was •: - ^ executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour ,of a society'l\/i/svButterfly.\whereunderland,vyas;agreedto • . . be:sold on ,05.08.1996.(3)m lakhs per acre. ^1^^ • urged that, the viand was in. the revenue estate of village Bhalswa jahahgir Purl and thus was pressed In .• , •ai,d as good'evidence of fair, market value of (and in z- . • the, said villa:geas of,the date of the. agreementytb sell. '• ' ;i.e'.5.8.1996.:

¶9Per contra, ..Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned senior cbunsel • ;; ; appearing;o.n,;behalf,of Uhipn of India reliedjon a Sale Deei ^^ dated05.06.1:696(ExhibitR-2,), whereunder1^03 fcrigha of land-in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl ..was sold; at a ,price of' ^1,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per arinum / ' is to.be given on said'vaiue;vthe.price,as on^he dale of th^., ^• notificationunderSection4 comes'to;?1,94,782per bigha, and: .thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available' .in the sahie village, it would be .imprudent .to travel to thd v ; adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed land for' . LA.App.No.999/2040&connectedmatters Pftge7bf2i ' fixing the marl<et value of undeveloped agricuttural land liaving a vast area. Learned counsel,also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the fair marketvalue of the jand.at a price much higherthan the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so. has the learned Reference Court. / ; • -I •; ; V

10., jt;rriay be noted that,when judgnrientwas reservedmthe above 'captioned matters on .19^'' August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgment in a batch, of land acquisition. appeals;,lead matterbeing LA.App,Np.266/2008titledya/Sinqb 1/9. UOI &Ann in which similar argunrientsas were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon; in. the instant appeals ari'd learned senior .couhsei Sh-.-Sahjay 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 TrildkChand [HaJqaPatwan) who appeared as. PW,-2 in U\C No.ll2A/2008,titled;/?^/Sinqh Vc;.Unionof Indian which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of 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, villagesSamaipuf Badliand Haiderpurare situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the Sigtb .pf vill^^ Jahangir Puri^ • ;• . . ..••• LA.App.No.999/2010& coimectedmatters . . 12. 1 may additionally note tlnat ^'the lay 'but ^.plan of the. /:.Wationai Capital Territory . of;, Delhi,. published' 'by th^e .. ;: Governnient of NCT Delhi woLjld reveal that village Bhalswa ' V: I /^^lahangirPuri,issituatedon G.T.KarnalRoad ^i ' ^e-Natibnal Highway;^ Samaipiun:AaspuK. \ , Khera Kalan Aiipur;, Marniporpur(Narela) are/on .the western: ; . ^ ' i . IK . . ' . ^ . ^3.. It ne.eds to. be ;highjighted•that 'Whatever devefopnieht .'\ .: ' took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangirPuri, post acquisition of agricultural lands ijn th'e revenue estafe of said'-- . . • :vi|lage was for. re-settlement of slum:•ahdJ-.J.,dwellersJ.e. the, 'V . , ' • character ,of urbanization in the , area was oi' a .kind where . . , : potential price increased .due to urbanization was' of a weak , nature.In the decision reported .a^ Amar Sinah Vs} Union of . . , india l99B (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, it was noted that' there existed a , . resettlenhent 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 remembered that the two subject acquisitions: , . K . . . were also for re-settlement of slum and J.J.CIusters. : '14. Th^ decision in: LA.App.No.266/2Q08iai Sindii Vs. UOi £ ; , Mn. which was reserved: on 12.8.2011^ and had yet to b€ V .. pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant;appeals were reserved' ' , - forjudgment, has since been pronouncedby me on, 2*3.8.2011 ; •' :-,::and r)^dulcl. highHght that while\assessingthe .feir rnarket/v^^ .-V •: value of the land 'situated In 10, revenue, esitates ill the same- - ^ revenue ^district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue ,instate .cyf ' • ; : . , Kvillages Pooth .Khurd, ;Shahpur Garhi> Sanoth,^;^^^^ / ; :M Khera i<hurd, Hol^mbi Khurd, and ^Bawana,, 1;, had.; noted 'thatthe. topology Of the ' areaV.',. LA.App.No;999/20aQ&co^ , Page9of2l ' : y.cbn'stituteda 'y'^at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnai . Road i.,e. and Rohta'k Road ,i;e/ NH-10 bifurcated at,.a "Vcpn-imoh point,, proceeding in ;^Jfferent^di;hections,-at^ SalDzi- •' •Mandi. •It needs to be^highlighted that village Bhaiswa Jahang'ir ' Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabp^^ and abuts towards:the east of NH-1., •15. In the appeals relatihg-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 2Q00, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel . for the land owners had relied upon' the sale .d^ed dated,. ,25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-lS/i) and the sale deed .dated;

24.03.2000- (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the,,same safe deeds on , Which learned counsel for the,, land owners have "placed , reliance, upon as noted in sub-para

(d) of pgra 8 hereinabove.. ; In the said, judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have dlscarGied these ,two-sale, deeds for the reasons recdrded in 'paragraj3hs,21 to • '2,3 which are reproduced hereunder:- v ; ' ' , 21; The first argument is predicated on the. 2^sale - -r.; deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 2:5.3.2000,. ihd'the . • sale deed, Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.200Lk As ^ ; ' M p^r: the former, fair market value for the •formef ^ 'k ; comes to ^26J5 lakhs per acre and th;6 latter (S: ' ; • ^63.478 lakhs per acf-e. The jearned--Reference - , Co;urt-.has. rejected the 2 sale ..deeds as>reliabie ^ " ; .evidence, to. deternime fair; market . vajue; Of ;• : agricultural:lands, for all the villages In, G|Uestid;h,on ^ - , the reasdning that' the sale d'eed Ex.PW-1^3.was •' . / • purchased by a religious trust by the: naiTie ,of • , 'Radha Swami Sstsang' and Suraj fihan :PW-6 who . . ' : : had tendered the .sale deed .in ;^idence,l while ^ deposing.in :Court in LAG I\l.o.68/i^5had stated / that to his .knowledge the'land wa&^pu^cha^ed• for religious purpose and was being used:forra religious purpose. .. the sale deed '^Ex.P\/V-l/2 h^s likewise ^ ^ LA.App.No.999/2010&'connectedmatters • Page lO o'f22, \ ' L bden held not tp be reliableevidenceto deteririihe fair market value, of agriculturd) Jands on' the reasoning, it was purchased by a Tsion Government Organization "Ghristian,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 a^ it was the , • , only plot, of the requisite size suitable, for; the - requirement of the organization and 'i^ being ;used for destitute women i.e. there was ,a special circumstance, perspnal to the vendee. . ;

¶22. As held in the decisionsreported:as 1995 (1) 5CG. 717 Land Acquisition Officer. Eturii & Qrs. Vs. - • tstiRohini &Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC ^ V 369 jviohd., Ra'ufuddin i/s: Land AcnuisitionkSmcPt •. 'j- {Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced/in a saje 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 sale deed to determine the rharket value of |and in an area for - .'J! , , the reason there' may be special circumstances • which havelied the buyerto'pay a higherprice. •The . true test, is the price which-a yyeH informed wrlling. "buyer would pay to an equally::wellinformed,seller ; ,, without -' being; influenced .b^^ ; any, splciai . circumstancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpiece of land. An informed buyer would, be one who has •, studied the market and has apprised himself of all - , available land in the. area; has understood the topologyof the area .and the prevailingprices. If a ' buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he may pay a much hig.her price and this would not be •/ a good index of fair market value ofthe lands in the . area. 1would be failing if I do not highlightthat 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-underagriculturalland in village- : ; Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesser price i.e. ^17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes to ?.63i478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28 89 , lakhs per acre,for Ek.RW-1/3. ,The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters 'i Page11 of22 ' . . f-; -• -. '. './' • j_:_ {• _Ex^PW-1/2 and Ex>W-1/3, themselves-a having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price ^nd ex-facie destroy .each other.,

¶23thusvapart from the reasoningof the learned •_ Reference Court, with whi:Ch-1 cdricur,::afore-noted reasons in-para 21 above would be additibnal r^sons to hold that the 2 sale deeds: would advisably :not be good evidence: Wherefrdmvfair • market valu^ of su;bject lands:can be .determined and more so for.the reason,.!:find'tlnatundervaribus awarcte nearlybetween7,000 to 8,000 bjfihatofland •^ :t when the acqui&^ is of 5uch large ,an area, it would make.alTthe more a re|son to be circumspect on,.sale deeds ^having ' intrinsicevidenceofthe transactionbeing,th^ result of a fancy of the 'buyer. I would be failing:not to ,, ,:nol^:/an, ;inre|Dorte^ idecision.cited , by learned ^ being the :decisi%:; dated • :19^-20O& disposing,ofa;batch Df appSli lead matter :^being LA.App.No.193/2006 PralM-i Sinnh . . thru ! .\/s. Qqi kl. highlightedthatth^ sale deed thereinby:#^ L&T ^ and -g bisyyg Qj: agricultural land for expansion of its factory which^had been . ignorejl by the learned Reference Court:dn 'the ground^at L&T had a fancy:for thfe said ;land :dWd hence the price: reflected therein could/not;be,' treated as a good evidenceof value of land in the area was rejected by the Court and the price,in , : question, with suitable deductionon account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the court and thus even in the Instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i;e. Ex.PW-1/2 and :e^.PW-;1/3 . should be treated.as the basis to determine fair ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Beinch in paras 37 to 38 wherein the pivision Bench," did hot accept the . value in the sale deed on its own logic as: Indicative - of the market value, but found that if tfe price .: ,ther^rrwas reduced,by1/3^ the price afrivediat would be the same as, would be price arrivedat with :, refetence to. the average rate of the. safe deeds produced,by.the:Union;0f India i.e. the salevdeeds Iv >• : ' . V >. r , • J' ;< .:'LA .App.N.o'.;999/2010:&cormected,matters Page 12 of 2^: produced by the Government were .giving a price of ^1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under •. which L&T had purchased the jand gave the price ?3,26,600/-per bigha and the average would come to ?2,31,800/- which was near about tjie price of^ ' ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'^'^ would be deducted. . , •; from the sum of ^3,2.6,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995 and

16.11.1995 and the • Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. - ^2,15,160/-. in other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but nneaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if'it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required ,to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the . inherent contradictionin 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 reject these two sble deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair, market value of. agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.,

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

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e.. 1 acre (and was sold at ^5,70,000/-. . ,. , \ ;

¶18Now, if the'price, as per the own, showing of the land .owners, was n5;70,000/- per acre as .on 01:;07i2d.03,•it is LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . '• Page13 of22 . difficult to 'comp the ati.norrnally high \^a:iue as per' • : Ex..PW-6/lwhich:is dated 8.4.1996in which the stated price'is tl8 lakhs per acre. It is Indeedvapuzflethat in 1995 the priie ' was flB lakhs peracre and 7 years down,the:lihe the price fell to ?15.7 lakhs per acre. I need to highlightthat in ^paragraph 39 of its decision, 'the, learned •Reference Court, .-while exaniinihg Ex.PW-6/l has opined that the said price was for speciar considerations and'not the price settled;-between ari ^ informed wlHing buyer and an .informed willing seller and , . .without being influenced special needs :pertaining to^^^^^a particuiarland, and had: thus discardedthe saidiale deed as . •. not reliable,evidencewherefrom^fair rharket,value of a large . ; track of^Iand had to be fixed.. • •: • /

19.. I have discussed, this issue In my decision dated V

23.8.2011 In L2A,.At3p.No.266/2008Sinoh Anr \ ^ • . 'W^ an abnormally high price for a. parceTof;lahd is with ' • .evidence of neither;the ^uyer. nor 'the 'seiler:b^ informedand, there,being a special feature qua the;,land an^ • have held the.samenot to,begood evidenceto determinefair, . market,value of a large part of land, being tHe.fanciful price : paid, by a buyer,smittenwith fancy, which obiseryatipnshave, . • -already been extraded by me herelna:bQve1:.e^paras22 and ^ ^' .23/c)fth.esaid,decision. I reiterate the same. ' V' \ '

¶20As regards auction rates of develbped plot' of land situated in the Sanjay Gandhi TransportNagaf,:,:| db not ,fin|ii: ,: , any substance in the a^rgumentsof the learnedicpunsel for tHe ' j ' land owners and concur with the decision ,of th^ learned' Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 3:0 Which are . premisedbri the decisionof the SupremeCourt reportedas Lai LA.App.Np.999/2010 & connected matters Page 14 of 22; . ' ' '•••' . . r ' Chand I/5. Union of India

(15) SCC 769.'^ Similar is the reasoning pertaiiningto the evidence relating-^^auetidh rat^s / ofresidentialplots orflats by-DDAr ' ' -V '' yZI. In :my decision dated 23;8.20il in LA.App.to , fai Singh Vs. UOi &Ors., I had extensivelydiscussedthe law declared;by the Supreme Court in case with; ' referenceto pri^e at which developed plots were allotted by ^differentagenciesi.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevantobservations and;findings in para 29 to.3.1 of the decisionir(,/a/^^7^'scase are extracted hereunder:- ; -i . . 25, Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or toDA with •- ^ . referenceto .the Bawana Industrial Estate developed• - by. DSIDC and Nlareja^Residential Scherrie;developed•Vv ^. by;DDA. Whetheritr.was;20%or 75%, wido not'know The inchoate evidence has' resulted in tfie'same /V factprs, being 3 in n'umber.which were'noted by the'. ; Supreme Court dn Lai .Ch&nd's case (,$'upra), ,which ' rpder this evidenceas most unreliableto determine : the value of land jn the subject cases.

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

¶311hold.thatthe learned ReferenceCourt, keieplng • • in view the obsefvation and the findings of the r - SupremeCourt in Lai Chand(supra) ha^ rightly : rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentialityreJating itself to the value, I promise the i'eader of the decisioni to deal with the same; while I - shallrbe discussing as to What should be the falr -^ market yalue,of the lands. ' . ; tA-App.>|Q..999/2010&eoiinectedmatters ,c v . : • : /• \^, . 22. Highlighting that in La! . Chancfs case, (supra)' the Supreme Court held that such raw data Was meartingless and, was too inchoate wherefrbm fair market value; could be crystallized. , , 23;. I. reiterate the reasoning to hold that price, at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay.Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which IDDA 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 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 ptea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO.ratesnoting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topologyof the area and as per^the,testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-:2 in LAC NO.112A/2008it ejnerges that village Burari is on the east of, village,Bhalswa Jahan'gir Puri and indeed the plan .for Delhi, would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Pui"i 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 Tiia. The. two are'adjoining villages separated by .'Outer Ring Road' and ,LA.App.No.999/2010C& connectedmatters . Page16 of22' ncP thus the fair market value of land.on a particulardate in the two villages would be comparable. •' '

¶26Whileassessingthe fair marl<etvalueof.the land situated in village Burari, which was acquired pat-suantto notifications dated 24.07.1998and 18,07.2003issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, I had considehed the material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced o,n

7.6.2011 in a batch of i-A.Appeais, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008titled RaibaJ& Or-; \/s. Uninh nf tnHf^ x. Qrs^ In the said decision,1had assessedthe fair marl<etvaiue of agriculturalland at ?11,60,580.82per acre.for'CategoiyA 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 ,?i9,20,568/-per acre:for CategoryAland and ?17,28,512/-pa-acre for Category Bland. In Jai Sinah-^rase ic.,inr^\ \ hgcj S.Nq. -1 Village Name Date of Notification' ;under Section 4 Fair , niarket •value (in lalclis per acre) .

¶1• Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 ;^14.75 for Category'A' J14.3728 for Cateaorv'B' •

2., —N Holambi Kalan

7.8.2000 n4.75 •3. /t Bawana

7.8.2000 ?14.7.5 for Category'A' ,^14.38125 for Cateaorv'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.9.2000 • ^14:835 for .Category 'A' : ?14.46413 for Category 'B' I:/A.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters •Page 17 of .22 ^5-Narela

2.5.2001 T16.165 , for Category 'A' ?15.76087 for Category 'B,'

¶6Holambi Kalan

22.8.20pi : ?16;745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B' ;

¶7Alipur .

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

¶8Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 ?

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

9., •Rajapur Kalan . 22.8.2001' ; ^16.745 for Category 'A' T16.43811 for Category 'B' .

10., Sanoth

7.12.2001 n7.295 -11.- Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ?18.655

¶12, . Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶13, . Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 fl8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5,2002, n8.655 ,15;. Sanoth

27.1.2003 fig.435 for Category 'A', f 18.94:912 for Category 'B' tl8.47539 for, Category '.C- ^

¶16•' Rajapur Ka an

27.1.2003 ^9.435, for Category 'A'. tl8.94912' for Category 'B' n8;47539 for. Category 'C Sinqh'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 jpse dixitof \X\e ' LA.App.No.999/2010& co^inectedmatters • P^ge 18 of 22 J , •• Ai' •j'- I .* . . ' r ] - •!: . • V . Government officers and had found not; only' rationale but ei ; of urbanizatioh inipacting such mcrease. With . ^ .reference to the deGisions^of-fpu^;Division Ben^^^^ of ithis ' Court,reportedas 2006 N AD D|Ihi VB:dairailSjnoir:Vs.udr& : 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram. ChdndRr l/<Wni-i:;i1 (2004) DLT' 95 Hukum Sinah Vs. UP! and an unreported dec^ in . . - LA.App.No.866^/^^ Mahender Sinah V< (JO! & brs. deGided oh 11.5.2006wherein based on :saje deeds andiotherevident • tend.pricewas determinedon Varibusdates between-th^ye^rs; 1993 to i996.andin relationto the rninimumpricefixed by thfe -:C5overn:ment1; had highlighted in; paras 50 to|;&3-pf'^thesaid- •'decTsion-as under;-' ,, . :

¶50The aforesaid judgniehts noted in .the^^^^ P^^ .. paragraphs, as also the various notifications issued frorn . tirne to time by the Governmentof NGTiDelhjrnotifyjny minimum price for agricultural lands in DeilVi as tabulated . : by me In para,7: above bring out two very Importantfacts' ' i relevant to det'erniinethe gr^owth/rise in th^ prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years comhiencing from the year 1990.:As of 27,4.1990minimum price was ' ^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose^to?10 laKhs pe^ acre as ; , , of 1.4.1997i.e. the increaseis ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.Q54%increaseiin7 y^ars and-the averageprice increaserwouldbe 16.436%.' The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and'thereafter by - 11% for the next 2years and 11.5%for thfemext^eari.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 |he decision ofJ^e Divisjon Bench of this Court in:: .Gafrafs case (supra), which I have disCuSsed in-para 49 • • , above.. • • ... •••• . ' . • • r V' •• V •i.:'.

¶51r need to elaborate a little nnbrewith fespe^ to the^ decision in ,Gajrafs ^case. Discussing Ithe.' evidence pertaining to fa;ir market value of agricultural land im A/illage.Ho.lamtoiKaJan as of 15.li. 1996, in;paras'9 tb 17- ' • ; IiA-App.Np'.999/2010&Aonnectedmatters fee 19 of 22^' I -• " ; the Court discussed the ' valuation on the basis 'ttf , -• agriculturalyield and found that the gross return per aerie per annum was ^95,000/- for multiple-cropped land and •havi.ng goocj irrigationfacilities a-nd'thus capitalizedthe land price at W.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,r^eferenceto land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FGI Godowns had come, up and based on sale instances found that based on .the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrializationthe land price would come to ?10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered,theprices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean , , average figure of ?9,76,12.1/-per acre for Category 'A' ^nds and ^9,51,1217-.perjacre for Category 'B' lands. ^'Qhlights that the-potentiality had been ; well-factored in when the Government issued the. minimum price notificationw.e.f. 1.4.1997,evidencedby the fact that even with respect to sale transactionsthe Court found that as against the minimum price notified as, of 1.4.1997 at no lakhs per acre, sale instances were ' • highlightingthat the price was no,03,364/;per acre. p. The .decision in MahenderSmnh'<^ pertaining^ to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above • highlightswith referenceto para 28 to 31 ofthe decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into; account by the Court which was projecting |-esidentiai;' 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 evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date' of the .notificationwith which the Division Bench was ,. concerned,virtually no developmenthad taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kala.n 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. Gajrafs-caise and. ^LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page20 of22•

> $-50 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 242/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus SURINDER SINGH & ORS Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG