Union of India v. Chet Singh & Ors

ORDER %

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm - .-'i W' w. V .. ; h-' % • +• IN the high court of DELHI AT NEV\^ DELhI > ludqment Reservpd On: AHaust 20 n ,' , Judgment PelivRmd On: igth S(-ntemb^r. ?nn LA.APP. 999/2010 & ; CM No.6549/201i(GrossrOt^ectio^) Through: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate ^ ^ , Mr;Deepal<Khosla, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. • '• ., • 'Vs.. , UOI&anc™er; • 'v.S Respond.nts^^ :^ , Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate &MnSanjayKumar Pathak, ilvilnSachin Nawani, Mr.Siddh^rthPanda and Ms.K Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates fonR-1 AND ' - ^1/2010, . LA.APP, 1001/2010 :& CM; IAADDItA.APP. 1007/201Q&CM I\lo.l5181/2011 LA.APP; 1010/2010, 'LA.APP' ^ '^°-12865/2011,]^.APP^5/2oil LAAPP^ ^2011^& CM-No.6756/2:011,:lA.APP. 41/2011, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. 142/2011v LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2^^)11 tA APp' ,163/2011 LA:APP. 246/2(311, L^APP;iISi MkIaPP? 2^^2011, LA.APP. 298/2011, LA.APP. 347/2011' LA APP 375/201,1, LA.APP. 386/2011, LA.APP 3^7ybbll'^LA:%Pp" ^elatin^ Notification U/Seci 4idated 15.09.2000 Si ^ Award N;0. 06/2002-200p,yiliagfBhalswaJahangirjbfcij^ ;. AND LA.App.No.999/20l0 connectedmatters i' • ' ^~L.: ju P-r" ' . 7- • :• /• ^ + ; LA.APP. .57/2011-& ;CM No.12871^011, LA.APP. 88/2011 LA.APP. 136/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. ,164/2011, LA.APP. 200/2011, LA.APP..201/2011, LA.APP. 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. ,, 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, LA.APP. 243/2011, IA.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.349/2P11&CM No.15182/2011,LA.APP. 373/2011, - , LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP, 376/2011, LA.APP. :380/201i; 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-Bhalswa'|ah^ngirPuri) i : CORAM: • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ; •1. Whetherthe;Reportersof locaTpapers may'be allowed • • to see the judgment? : ' '•

2.-To be referred to Reporter or.not? ^ > ,? . "*

¶3Whether the.judgment should be reported in .t'h'e . • Digest?- .' " PRADEEP NANDRAIQG.1 :v

1.. • I 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 issuedearlier in pointoftime. •

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue, pstate of village BhalswaJahangirPurl was-acquired,pursuant , LA.App:No'.999/2010&connected-matters ' .Page2;df22 ' • to a notification dated

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a iDublic purpose, nameiy, . '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 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 ^13.82 • lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed ; at ^13.82,lakhs per acre;-, • " .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.112A/2008 titled Raj Sinoh 1/5. : assessed the fair market value'of thfe acquired, land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or m,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, nptified vide Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing the ; compensation, did not grant appreciation for the period from •

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the ' Land Acquisition Act was issued on .15.09.2000) but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days (a) 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the price ?13.82 lakhs per acre.' . • / tA.App.No.999/2010&connected-matters , . • • Page3 of2i V , •'<>- . ^

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 ;bi^ha, situated in tlie/same revenue estate ^of village Bhal^a ; , • jahangirPuri was acquired,pursuant :to ,a ribtificationissued' : under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition..Act 1894, dated, . 30.07.1998;for the^samepublic purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitatianof . . JJ Cluster'. This,was followed by. a declaration'underSection 6 of the Act issued on, 04.08.1998. ' After.fallowing the due . process, the, Land Acquisition Cbllector announced: an award bearing; No.18/2000-01 dated

12..03,2X)0i!' whereby :he assessed the fair market, value of the acquired land at ^2,33,333 p^r bigha which is equivalentta fll.20 lakhs per. • • • • acre., , , ; V •

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Larici, AcquisitionGollector,the land ownerssought referenceunder Sectian 1.8 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, rn ,the lead matter being LAC Nq.111A/2008titled Chandrawati 1/^ Umon ofIndia, hssQssQ^the fair r^arketvalue,af 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. the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoradapting the land rate-•notified 'by the Government with, .effect from' 1.4.1997 vide ;. .. circulardated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notificatianin question was issued on 3^.7.1998and the learned Reference Court .granting^^hancement (a) 11% per annum for the. interregnum perio,d. . . ' . • 7., . The Union of India as-well as the land owners have challenged the assessmentmadevby the; Learned^Reference:. •LA.App.No.9,99/2010'&connectedmatters • Page 4,of 22 ', ' :• t • Court by way of,the appeals and crosk objections^mentioned ' above.' ' • ' -

¶8On behalf of the; land ^owners, 'justifying higher compensation, , reliance was placed on the following docunnentary evidence:-

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

16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it disclosed its jntentibn to charge unearned increase in respect of developed residential and commercial properties owned by L&DO. Relying on this ; document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the J iV rate of residential land in Azadpur, which is stated to . ; be"close to village Bhalaswa Jahangir Purl, was fixed . at ?5830/- per square meter or ^2,35,92,400.92, per acre .^nd it .was urged th^t 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 GandhjTransport Nagar, in terms of .the Resolution No'705 dated:,23.?lli.lp7, ' • (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD .'decided to aliot • developed' plots to/the. transporters- (a) t425/- per square meter and'Exhibit PW-3/2,, a copy of the Resolution i\lq.6l0 dated 21.02.2005,, Whereby MCD' . • decided to allot the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport >Nagar (a) ?4,5,0b/-per square metre were urged to be material and good evidenced Relying, on-these LA,App.No.999/2O10&connectedmatters ' Page5of22 document^, learned counsel for the lalrid owners argued that the rate stated :ln the resolutions aforenoted,which was applicable'for the year;1976,; would evidence that fair market value of developed land comes to ^17,19,857/-per acre and it was.urged that even if 50% deduction is hnade on accountof the . development costs, for undeveloped lands, - fair . • V market value would come to t8,59,928/- per acre in • the; year. 1976 and increasing the same .by 12% per •a.nnum, :the fair market value as of 15.9.200,0 'would ,, be.^24,.76,592/-peracre. . _. (c) • Learned counsel, for the land owners, .also, placed reliahce-on the auction record of plots In Rohini Residential Scheme'in the year 19.97-98. and" •• . 1998-99 (ExhibitsPVV-8/2.and; PW-8/3). While relying ' ® on the brochureof DDA pertainingto'the yearf:2006,: ; it vyas argued .that as. per the advertisement auctions . were held qua flats having plinth area of .69 sg&are • metre .to. 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri. at .a price ' . ranging between ^23.72 lakh to ^28.4 lakh, .which ' ' according to learned counsel translates to a price of . f14,36,36,363 per acre and counser urged that ; ' suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land.

(d) Relying on a sale deed .t>f village Khera iKhtird ^ (Exhibit PW-is/l), whereunderland measuring 2-19 -j bigha was sold

(a) ?32,40,3!00/- on - 25.04.2001, ; learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes to. ?56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It. was LA.App.No.999/2010&connected,matters . ' ,• Page6of22 / \ ,, contended that this sale deeel should be.relied upon, after m|l<ing a reasonable deductipn. towards • •development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agriculturariand in village :Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. Andther^sale deed dated

24.03.2000 ' (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby larid measuring 4-16 •, bigha situated in the revenue estate of village \ Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swa'mi Satsang Vyas at a price of ?26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon. ,

(e) Learned counsel for the land .owners also relied upon an Agreenlent to Sell (Exhibit P.W-6/a) which was • executed by, one Shri Khushi Ram in favour of a society'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996

(g) ?18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the • revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in • aid as good evidence of fair market value of land in the said village as of the date of the agreement to sell • i.e. 5.8.1996.

¶9Per contra, Sh,5anjay 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 BhaJswa Jahangir Purl was sold at a. price of ^1,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per annum is to be given on said value, the price as on the,date of the notificationunder Section 4 comes to 94,782 per bigha, and • . . . thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available ,• in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining viljage or to adopt the price of developed land for LA.App'.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • '• Page7of22- • • \\ fixing^ the market;value of undeveioped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned cotinsei also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Qollector has assessed:the fair rriari<etvalue b.t the' land at a price much higherthan the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference Court. ' • ' ~ ' id. It may be noted thatwhen judgmentwas reservedin the above captioned.matters on August, 2011, decision had , been reserved for judgnnent in a batch of land.acquisition. appeals,lead matterbeing LA.App.No-266/2008titledJaiSinqh 1/^7. IJO! &Ann \n which.similarargumentsas were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upoa in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel' Sh.Sanjay Pdddar submitted that in response,to the arguments of learned counsel for the land owners, the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response. •

¶11The topography of. village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the depositionof Shri TrilokChand [HalqaPatwan) who appeared as:PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008titled RaiSinqh lA Union ofIndia in,which he has explainedthe topologyofthe area while proving the Ai<5 5/Z/-5 Ex.PW-2/1 of.village Bhalswa ' JahangirPur!. His testimonyywouldreVealthat villageKadipur ' and Libaspur are situated,in the North,;villagesMukhmelpur ' and Burariare situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadli and Haiderpurare situated in. the West; and villages Bharola and •Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of village Jahangir • Purl. ' •' . LAApp.No.999/2010&coi-mectedmatters;. , , Page8of22

¶12I may additionally note that 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.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. VillagesBadii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the westerrv side of National'Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to. be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post V 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. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, 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 remembered that the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement of slum and J.J.Clusters.

¶14- The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinaii l/s. UO! & Ml. which was reserved on ,12.8.2011 and had' yet to be pronouncedon 19.8.-2011,when instant appeals were reserved forjudgment, 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 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 constituted a ,'V' at tine point of intersection where G.T.Karnai .Road i.e., NH-l and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a - common point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi IMandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangiir Puri 'is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihaboye 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 hereinaboye. 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 la'khs per acre. The learned Reference .Court has .rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable . ! evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for ail the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed' Ex.PW-1/3 was ' . purchased by a religious trust by the name' of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and-Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated >' that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious :. purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-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-on the reasoning it was purchased by' a Non Government Organization "Christian p.rganization" and as per . the testimony of PW-? Sister Annie,the secretary of ' the organization stated that the organization had to pay the price for the.;said piete of land as it Was the ,' ; ^ , . only .plot of the : requisite size' .suitabje for. the ' f ^cjuirement of the organization, and is being used , ^for destitute women i.e. there was a .special . ' circumstance, personal to the vendee.

22.• As held in the decisions reported as 1,995 (1) . see 111 Land Acouisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. ~; Isti Rohini&Ann (Referpara 6) and 200.9 (14) SGC , Mohd. Raufuddfn Vs. Land Acquisition , (Refer para-13) sale transactions evidenced in a .. sale deed which are tendered in evidence by> virtue j • of Section 5lA of the LA.Act 1894 have not to'be i'pso facto treated as an .exemplar sale deed' to, ' • determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there rnay be special circumstances ^ , which have led the buyerto pay a higher price. The true test is the price, which a well informed willing byyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special ^ . : circumstancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpidce 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 . lUli .buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he •_ • •'^ay pay a much higher price and this would not be . : • . ^ a good index of fair'market value of the lands in the area., I woutd be failing if 1'do not highlight that the ' . . • Union of India had relied upori the sale deed dated ,

20.5.2002,. which was accepted by the learned , Reference. Court pertaining to the notification dated 27^.2003 where-^underagricultural land, in village .. Rajapur Kalan. was sold by,an agriculturist to an • • . .. agriculturistfor a much lesser price i<e. n7,.74,109/- • - • /. • per .acre as against the 'price which corries to >• • , . . , .?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28 89 . . " . iakhs per toe.fqr :Ex;PW-l/3. The 2 sale deeds ' - , ; LAApp.No.PPP/^OlO&coiinected.matters .• Page11of22. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves,are having intrinsicevidence of the fanciful price and ^x-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart fronh the reasoningof the learned Referenc^ 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 nnore 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 having intrinsicevidenceof the transactionbeing the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited . by learned dated '

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of'appeals,lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao ^innh (since,deceased) thru LRs I/?. UPj & prg it was highlightedthat the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchasedS 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 ahd 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. oMand'being large, was accepted by the • • 5°^? in the instantcases the 2 sale deeds in .question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2^and Ex.PW-1/3' to determine fair ' marketvalue. The argumentignoresthe reasoning n the decision of the Division'Benchin paras.,37 to . , 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the . value in the sale deed on its own logicas,indicative of the market value, but found that if the iDrice : • the price arrived at would t)e the same as would be price arrivedat with referenceto the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds •LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' Page12 of22 ;\V> produced by the Government were giving a plrice of . ?1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T'had purchased the land gave the price ' ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to .^2,31,800/- which was n^ar about the price of. ^2,15,1.60/- 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.r995 .and.

16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market vaiue 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 pedaMically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the , sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be,, given. I would highlight once again, that I have , ' hereinbefore already noted the' inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per ; • the'2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually • . .. destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting . ,, ' • fair market value." .

¶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.Hand in' village . Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.

17... As regards the agreenient to. selT (Exhibit PW-6/1), the, . land situated in village Bhalswajahangir 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 land was sold at. '. . ' , ^5,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^5,70,000/- per acre as. on Ol.07.2003, •it is . .. LA.App.No.999/2010&• connectedmatters - . . . Page13 of22 • difficult to comprehend the abnormally,high' value as per Ex.PW-6/1which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed ,a' puzzle that in 1996 the price , was ^18 lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the price fell •to ^15.7 lakhs per acre. I need to highlight that in-.paragraph of its decision, the learned Reference Court, while-examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opined that the said price was for special' considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer and an informed 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. ' . , 19: 1 have, discussed this issue in my deci:Sion•date^

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah l/s. UO! & Anr. 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 same not to be good evidence to deterrnine fair ,market Value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. 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 learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premisedori the decisionof the SupremeCourt reported Lai LA.App.N,o.999/2010&comiected,matters Page14 of22 ' ,^1 V Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is tine reasoning 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 jai Singh Vs. UOi .& Ors.. I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands, with referenceto price at which developed plots were allotted by differentagencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevantobservations and findings in para 29 to 31 ofthe decision in iaiSingh's case . , are extracted hereunder:- . , 29. Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted'land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela ResidentialScheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20%'pr 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 render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

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

¶31I hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the . ' • , , SuprerneCourt in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, 1 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.999/2010&connectedmatters . Page15 of22 ,,22'. highlighting, that m Lai Chancts case (supra) the Suprenne Court held that such raw data .was meaningless and. was too inchoate wherefroiti fdir market yali^e could be /. . ' 'Crystallized'. , , • '

¶23, 1reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which IVICID : ;• 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; . '"efefence to village Rithala where lands were atquired for'; Rohini ResidentialScherne, I negate the plea fbr compensation , ' ; - •; to be enhanced with^ reference to LSfDO rates noting that Iarh; : • • • ' concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^.758.01 . , " ' ^ . bigha and 929.05 bigha. , , , ' ' • . - 25.: From the topology of the area and as per the,testimony. ' 'of Trilok Chand (Halka.PatWari) who appeared as l=',W-2 in LAC ' . No.ll2A/2qp8 it emerges that village B.urari is. on ;t:he east.of' . village Bhalswa jahangir i^uri and indeed the plan for Delhi , .would reveal that the two villages i.e.. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl. ; 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 iviajnu Ka;;Tila. The . . two,are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and , • • LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ; ' Page 16 of22 ^ ^^^ ^^^^ .... '' ' , ^ ' thus the fair market value of land on a-particulardate in the tiwo villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessingthe.fairmarketvalue of the land situated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuantto. notifications .dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1 had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence in -my decision, pronounced,on

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008titled Raibal & Or^. Vs. Union nf 'lnrii^ Qr^ In the said decision,Ihad assessedthe fair marketvalue of agriculturalland at.m,60,580.82per acre fof CategoryA land, ^44,522.73 per acre for Category B land .. and ^9,28,464.65'per acre for. Category Cland pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7,1998. The land acquired^pursuanto notification dated 18.07.2003 had'been assessed by me at' ?19',20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ^17,28,512/-per acre for Category Bland. In jai Singh'scase {supra), .1 had S.No. Village Name Date of Notification under Section 4 Fair market value (in iakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd.

7.8.2000 ^14.75 for Category 'A' <•7* • ^14.3728 for Cateaorv 'B' j ' 2. Holambi Kalan

7.8.2000' n4.75

¶3j\ Bawana

7.8.2000, . ^14.75 for Category 'A' ^14.,38125 for' Cateqorv 'B' > .4. Khera Khurd

11.9.2000 ,m.835 for .Category 'A' fl4,46413 for Category'B' LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters

¶5Narela

2.5.2001 ^6.165 , for Category 'A' • ?i5.76087 for Category 'B' :

¶6, Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 ^6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 fqr Category 'B'

¶7, • Alipur

22.8.2001, n6.745 for Category 'A' n

6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001

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

¶9Raja pur Kalan

22.8.2001 ^16.745 for Cat;eg6ry 'A' ?I6.43811 for Category'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 n7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ?18.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ?I8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 ^8.655

15., .Sanoth

27.1.2003 .^19.435 for Category 'A'; ?18.94:912 for Category 'B' ?18.47539 for Category 'C ,

¶16Rajapur Kalan • 27.1.2003 , ?19.435 for Categor:y 'A' ^8.94912 for Category 'B' ^18.47539 for Category 'C Singh's case (supra), 1 had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from tirne to time and found the same not to be th^ ipse dixitof the LA.App.No.999/2010 & co^mectedmatters 1 TX -1/ ; • .Government officers and had found,not only, rati^onale but a / , reflection, of urbanization impacting such , increase; With . preference to the; decisions of.four Division Benches of this , Court reported as .2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gdirai Sinoh Vs. UP! & 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOL 111 (2'004) DLT Qb Hukum Singh Vs. UOJ and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinoh Vs. UOr & Ors. decided ' ; - on ,11.5.2006wherein based,on sale deeds and potherevidence, land price was deterrhinedon variousdates betweenthe yearis 1993 to 1996 and in relationto the minimumpricefixed by. the v GovernmentI had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 ^of th,e said, ,w ' decision as under;- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding , , P^fagfaphs as also the various notifications issued from , ' time to time by the Governmentof NGT Delhi nbtifying : minimum price for agriculturallands in Delhi as tabulated; by me in para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts' ., relevant to determine,the growth/rise in the prices of: , agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing > y^a'" 1990. As.of 27.4.1990 rnihimum price was ,^4-65 lakhs per acre which rose to no lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7' • years which gives us a 115.054%increase in 7 years and • . the averageprice increasewOuld be 16.436%..The price -rise over the next 1 year is. by 11.2% and.thereafterby-11% forthe next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e.,,. as of 1.4.2001; It shows that due to ur^banization, • between the year 1990 and 1997'prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would! ,: bejthe decision of the Division Bench of this Court ih ' V Gajrafs case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 " above.

¶51I need to elaborate a little more with, respect to the. decision in GajraJs case. Discussing..the v,evidence: pertaining to fair market value of agriciijitural land in village Hblambi Kalan as of 15,11.1996, in paras'9 to 17 , " ,L-A.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters .. ' Page19 of22 ' •'

$-56 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 248/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus CHET SINGH & ORS Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG