Union of India v. Ajit Singh & Ors

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. -r-7

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm ilf.- vr % IN THE, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHJ ludqmentReservpd nn^^ ig^h [ynn , - Delivered OnSeptember. 20li , LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Grdss-Ot^ection) J Thiraugh: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mr.DeepakKhosIa,Advocate arid / l^r.N.S.NegtAdvocate. •, •; " Vs. •' •" / y v,-'^ • UOI &ANC^ER , ^Respondent ^ Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdv&ate ' • , :> 5^ Mf.SanjaY^Kumar Pathak/iMr.Sachin . ^ '^fwani,Mr.SiddharthPanda a^d Ms.K Kaomudi Krran,AdvocatesfpnR-l \ ^AND > ; \ r M 961/2:010, ., LA.APP. 1001/2010' CM 1007/2D10 & GM N0.151§1/2011^' ,. 1009/2010,j ;;LA.APP^ 1D10/2010>' ^LA.APP' ^ CM No.12865/2011,;1A.AP:PJ5/2011iA API^" :., ^^2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA^APP/ - : ,. ; Mo.6740/;2011,LA.APP. 41/20n^^^ 89/2011 LA APP ' : if '-A-APP.: .24672011, LA.APR. 24/7/2^11^'la.APP 248/2011j, LA.APP. 298/2011, LArAPP. 347/201l'^^E/IaPp' ,375/20llvLA.APR. 386/2011,.LA.APP. 3g^7/2(jll'L/^^PP' ^ 4^011;i;APP;v ;|Rdlating Notificatibn u/Sec^,4 ;dated 15.O9.2O0D &' • Award No. 06/2002-200|3,Villag4BhalswaJahah^^^^^^^^^ '••• "AND-V ' •' ;LA.App.No'.999/2010&connectedmatters •age 1 of22 ' "•' ' I • .' • V'> '4 i ' . ' i c 'I V' •! + LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM NO.12B71/2011, LA.APP ; 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2dll,, LAAPP. 132/2011, LA.APP/ : ^ •164/2011, LAJpP. 2.0,0/2011, LA.APPi 201/2011; LA.APP. . 202/2011, LA./^PP, 2l^2011/-LA.APP.240/2^11, LA.APP. - V ^ 241/2011, LA.APP. 24^/2,011;^LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. • : 244/2011, LAAPP; -245/2011,: LA.APP. 323/2011, ' ; / LA.APP.346/2011,LA.AHP:348/2011 &, CM Nb.15194/2011^. >> LA.APP.349/2011&CM No.15182/2011,LA.APP; 373/201Iv - ; : LA.APP. 374/20ia; ;LA.APP. 376/2011, lAiAPP; 380/2011, -- ; . LA.APP/382/2(^1; LA^APP.:393/2011; LA(APP./398/2^)11, ; LA.APP. 39,9/2011,. LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011 • ; LA.APP.;410/2X)11,LA.APP. 414/2011. ." v ; , • : {R.el,a1:i:n to .Notification u/Seic. 4 .dated 30v0f;1998 & ^ ^ ^/.Award No. 18/2000-2001,Viliag;e-BhalsWaJaba.fifir Purl) •• 'v CORAM':; \ ' ;v '^ /' \ ; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRi'^Q^^ i: ^ - ; : 1. ,Whetherthe Reportersoflocal papers may be allowed ^ T : to see the'judgment?, . - • 2. -To;b;e referred to-Reporter orhot? ' / ' . • 3. Whetherthe judgment should be reported'in th^'^' • • Digest? ^ \ : " • ' - PRADEEPNANDRAinri,| ^ i;

¶1I proceed with an apologyto the readerby referringto a notification issued later in point of time and then to a notificationissued prior in fDoint.of time; but the reason is that ' . the learned counsel for the land -owners had addressed: Argumentswith respectto the notificationissuedlaterand hadi V ; required:,price to. be suitably -reduced pertaining to .the;v notificationwhich Was'issued'earlierin pointoftime. •V •• , • 2: , ;Land h^easuringv/SB-Ol bigha situated i^ theireveriu^K estate of village Bhalswa.jahangi.rPurl was acquired pursuant •:LA;-App.N:o.999/2010,& connectedmatters ' ,Page2of2i; '. ; to a notification dated

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of . the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of th,e 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:20:04.2062, •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 15.0,9.2000 was fixed at ^13.82 lakhs per acre. • ^ -

¶3Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land' Acquisition Collector, the land owners, sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned ReferenceCourt,. in the lead matter being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoh 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value ,bf the acquired lan.d gt ^3,03,534 per bigha or ^14,56,963 per atre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well,as the Learned Reference.Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land,, .adopted-the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the; Government as on

01.04.2000, notified vide 'Circular dated

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

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section:4 of the Land Acquisition ,Act. was issued on :15.09'.2000, ' but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation fpr vthe said' period of. 165 days @12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4,2000 and the price ?13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA;App.No.999/^010&connectedmatters Page3 of22 ,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 notificatipnissued . under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998,for the same publicpurpose i.e. 'Rehabilitationof JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declarationunderSection 6 ,, of the Act issued -on 04.0,8.199,8. After following the due ' process, the Land Acquisition Collectorannounced an awahd : bearing No.18/2000-01 dated 12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^2,33,333 per bjgha which is equivalentto m.20 lakhs per • acre. .r

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessnnent made .by the Land AcquisitionCoHector,the land owners sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in .the lead matter being LAC l\lo.lllA/2008titled Chandrawati Vs.. ' 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 rea-son,; as noted, hereinabovepertainingto the notificationdated 15.'9.2000i.e. the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoradopting the land rate, . notified by the Government with effect,from 1.4.1997 vide circulardated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notificationi:n' • question was issued on 30.7.1998and the learned Reference/ • Court granting -enhancement @ 11% per annum for th|v, interregnum period. \ 7; ,The Union of India as well as the land,owners havel .chaHenged the assessmentmade by the Learned Reference• LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page-4 of 22. j Court by way of the appeals and. cross objections•.rnentioned : , ^ •.above, , ' .• • ; •••

¶8On behalf of the land ,owners, justifying .higher, compensation, reliance, was placed on the foNowing" 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 . . • y respect of developed residential and comrhercial ." properties owned .by L&DO. Relying, on this . " document, it was argued that in the year 1999i,the ' ' rate of residential land'in Azadpur, which is stated to , be close to village Bhalaswajahangir Puri,.was fixed ' at ^5830/- per square meter.or;^2,35,92,400;92 per ' acre and jt wa? urged that if 50% is deducted ; towards development cost, .the land ,owners should • be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of ^1,17,96,200/-per acre. , ' •

(b) . The rate charged, by MCD for allotment of • , •commercial plot in Sanjay GandhiTransport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution No.705 dated ,23.11.1987 . (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot ' / • developed plots to the transporters (a) ?425/-, per square meter and; Exhibit P.W-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610..dated 21.02.2005; whereby MCD decided to allot th4 plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport •Nagar (5) ?4,500/-p^ersquare metre were urged to be material and good evidence.. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters , Page5of22 .- i' • ' i' • 'V., , .f' •A, > documents,; learried counsel for' ;the latid ?owners ' :' x arg;ued that the rate stated in the resolLitions \ , afofenoted,, which was applicable for tii year 1976;, ,: wo,uld evidence that tair market value df^developed ' " 'and comes to ^17,19,;857Aper acre and it Was urged ; • • that even if50% deduction ,is made on acSount dfthe development-costs, for undeveloped.'lands,:•fair ^; •; market'vailuewould;cofTle tc>,^^,5.9,928/-per^ acre in' , ^ ; -the'year 1976 and increasingthe $ame;by 12%,per ! •annum, the^fair market value as qfi 15.9,2000 would. . be f24,76;592/-- per acre. ; ,• i; . "i. ^• . •. (,c) " Learned counsel for the ' land owners''also.- : placed reliahce on the auction record of plots In , Rohini Residential Schenie in the year, 1997-^98 and 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3); While relying ^ , on. the broch-ureof PDA pertaining to the iyear 2006,^ it was argued that as,per the advertisement auctions were held Jqua flats having plinth area of ^69 square metre to 71'square metre in JahangirPurivat a fjrice ranging between f23.72 lakh to ?=28.4 lakh, which \ accordingto learnedcounseltranslatesto a, pric^ of: ' :. . n4,36,36,363 per acre and counsel u;rged that suitable deduction could be-effected therefrom

(d); Relying on a :sale deed •Of,village Khera Khurd , , .(ExhibitPV^,a:5/l),-whereunder land'measuring'.2^9 ,. ;;blgha vyas .sold :i@ ?3i2,40;300A. on 25.04.2&1, • i learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes ' to ^56,93,16:3/- or: ^11,86,16:9/- per bigha.i It 'mas,. ' : ' •, y -:, ^ y cDintehdedthat this^saledeed shQiild be.relied.-lU / ,. V, after, 'mal<i:hg a reasonable; deduction, .towards , /y:, 7... developn?;entcostto deterpineth ' ; ; of' undevelQped agrrcuituraJ land in village 'BKalswa • ' Jahangir Puri. Another^sale deed, dated'24.03.2000 : : V/ (ExHibit PW7I5/2), .whereby land .measuring . 4-16 ,/ ; • bigha situated in the revenue estate of: yillage, ; . ; S Marhurpurwas soild to Radha/SwaniiSatsangVyas at ^ a price of^26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon.

(e) Learned counsel for the jand owners also relied . • upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was executed; by one Shri Khushi Ram in ifavour of a ' society 'M/s;Butterfly',whereunder land was agreed to ^ ; , be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^18 lakhs per acre^ It was : urged that the land was in the revenue . estate of t , .village Bhals.WaJahangir Purl and thus was pressed in aid, as good evidence of fair market value di'.land in ' . .the said village as of the date of.the agreement to sell ' i.e., 5.8.19:96: .9. . Per .corttra,, Sh.Sanjay ^Poddar learned senior:, counsel appeari:hg..-onbehalf of Union of India relied,on a-'.Sale Deed..^ ; dated 05.06.1996 1-03 bigha of land \ in; ,village ;B;ha|s\^a .Jahartgir Puri was ,;sold at a iprice of ' , ?l,40,oboand urge.d that.even if 12% appreciation'perannum/ : to be .^given-on said .value, the price as ;0n the date of the ^' . :/. notificationuncjer.Section4.comes.to^^l.,94,782'perbigha, and/ ;• ^thus^it was ai^gued that since price of siniilar.land available in the,,same village, it .w.ouid be" Imprudent to. trayei to the .' ;, adjoihing village or to adopt the price of developedviahdfor: LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters " ' • :e 7 of 22; 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 nnuch higherthan the one; reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference., . Court.

¶10It may be noted that when judgmentwas reservedin thq, above captioned matters on 19^^ August, 2011, decision had: been reserved for judgment in a batch of land acquisition appeals,lead matterbeing LA.App.No.266/2008titledJaiSinqh 1/t. IJO! &Anr-in which similar argumentsas were advanced , with respect to similar evidence relied upon in;'the instant appeals and learned ..senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response to, the arguments, of .learned .counsel,for: the land owners, the arguments.which., he had^ advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his ^ response.

¶11The topography of village Bhaiswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the depositionof Shri TrilokChand'(//a/t/aPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 i;n LAC NO.112A/2008.titled Vs Union of India \n which he has explained the topology of the' area while proving the Al<5 Sizra Ex..PW^2/lof village Bhaiswa JahangirPurl; His testimonywould reveal thatvillage Kadipur and Libaspur are situated,in the North, villages;Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villagesSamaipurBadIi and Haiderpurare situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of.villageJahangir Purl. LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters , Page8of22

¶12I may. additionally note tlnat the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of. Delhi, published by the Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri is situated on the eastern side of G..T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. VillagesBadli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on ,the western' side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to' be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangir Puri> post acquisition of agricujtural lands in the revenue estate of said village was for re-settlementof.slum arid J.J. dwellers i.e. the , character of urbanization in the area was of a ki'nd where potential price, increased due to .urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah l/s. 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 rememberedthat the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement of.slum and J.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 /5/ 5/>7(7/7 l/s. UP! & Ml. 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 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 tiie point of intersection where G.T.Karns! 'Road i.e. NH-l commoh point, • Mandi. ilt needs and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a-. . proceeding ih.\different' directions,, at Sabz-i to be highlighted that village Bhalswa jahangi.r Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1.,

15.. In the appeals relating to the said ID villages where land • I . • ' . - were acquired pursuant.to different notifications issued from tinie to time 1 had dealt with notifications issued in the year 200D, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the, land owners had relied', upon the sale deed dated

25.0.4'2001 (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 placad reliance upon as noted in sub-para (d:) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 ,tcV 23,which are reproduced hereuhder:- •21. The 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 faif market . value of ^ • agricultural lands, for all the villages In question on , .the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW.-l/3, was .'purchased by a religious trust. by the... name of "v . 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhah .PW-6 who , had tendered the sale deed in evidence. While . deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated . •/ that to his-knowiedge 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. deterrnine fair market value of agricultural lands ^on; the ' . , . reasoning it was purchased: by a Non 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) Vs. jsti Rohini &Ann. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC ; ~ 369 Moiid. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer . (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by 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 market value of land in an area for, thse reason there may be• special circumstances which have led the buyerto pay a higherprice. The , . ,true test is the price which,a well informed"willing , ; buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being . influenced ' by any Special circumstancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpieice 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 prevailingprices. If a buyer has a; fancy for a particularpiece,of land, he Sl pay a much higherprice and this would not be • a good index of fair market value of the lands in the , area.. 1would be failing if1do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deied 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 ?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and U8 89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page11 of22 • Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having mtrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from the reasoningof the Isarned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be .additibnai 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 ail the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having • intrinsicevidenceof tine transactionbeing tine resuit of a fancy of tlie buyer. •I'would be failing -not to note an unreported decision cited by learned iqT? 9nnQ decision dated 19,12.2008 disposing of a batcin of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Smnh (since deceased)thru tHs l/s: Um ^nrc it was highlightedthat the sale deed therein by which L&T I Pj^'''^hased3 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,suitablededuction,on accduntof the parcel of jand being large, was accepted by the .Courtand thus even in the instantcases the 2 sale ^ t u '-e-Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 . , should be treated as the basis to determine fair marketyalue. The argumentignoresthe.reasoning• in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wheremthe Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative .. of the market value, but found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3^^,the price arrived at would be the sanne,aswould be price arrivedat with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds • ' produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010cfe connectedmatters Page12 of22 produced by the Government were giving a price of ?1,37,000/- per bigtna and. the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price . ?^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/-' which was' near about the price of • ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3''^ would be deducted. from the suni of ^3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judghient 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 Divisioh 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 required to be given. I would highlight once again, that 1 have hereinbefore already noted' the . inherent contradiction in the.value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence, of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value." ^

¶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. i.n village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl.

¶17As regards the agreement, to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village BhalswaJahangir Puri has beeih.agreed to be transferred for a sum of ^18 lakhs per acre. The land owners have also "relied ' upon • another safe deed dated

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land'was sold at .^15,70,000/-..

¶18" Now, if the price, as, per the own showing of the land, owners was ^5,70,000/- per acre as^on 01.07.2003, it is, LA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmatters . • . • Page13 of22 ••• ' •• . • • •• . V : • difficult to comprehend the' abnormally high value as per Ex.PW-6/1which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzlethat jn 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 highlightthat 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. .

¶19I have discussed this issue, in my decision . dated

23.8.20.11 in LA.App.No.266/2008lai Sinoh Vs. IJOl ^ Anr i.e. . I where an abnorrpallyhigh price for a parcel,of lahd 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 courisel for the land owners and concur, with. the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 a^nd 30 which are premisedon the decisionof the SupremeCourt reportedas U^J •LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page14 of^2 r. C/?a/7c/ 1/5. iy/7/o/7 of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the 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. fai Singh l/s. UOI & Qrs., I had extensivelydiscussedthe Law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Ghand^ case with referenceto price at which developed plots were allotted by differentagenciesi.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant.observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision In jaiSingh'scase are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Mow, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or'DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed . by, DSIDC and Narela ResidentialScheme developed • by DDA. Whetherit was 20% or 75%, we do not know The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same ' factors, being 3 in number which wsre noted by the Supreme Court in Lai Chand's case (supra)', which render .this evidence as most unreliableto determine the value of land-inthe subject cases.

¶30It is no, doubt true, as held even by the learned Reference, Court, that with the developrnent of , Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini, Residential Scheme and Narela ResidentialScherine,the subjectlan^s had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to' which the ^. , buildingpotentialitywould translateitself. " ,

¶311hold that the learned ReferenceCourt,,keeping ' m view the observation and the .findings of the ' SupremeCourt in LaJ_Chandsc^se. (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.999/2010&,connectedmatters Page15 of22-

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chands case :(supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate, wher^from fair market value could be crystallized. \ '

¶23I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanja'y Gandhi Transport'Nagar and price at which'DDA sold developed plots and-flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural-land.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for' charging unearned increase when lease-hold property undef L&DQ 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! Chanel's 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 corripensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that! am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^758.0l! 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/2G08it emerges that village Burari is on the east 9f village Bhalswa jahangir Purl 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 Majnu. Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'Outer Ring Road' and •LA.App.No.999/2010&Qonnectedmatters • • Page16 of22 '\p •thus the fair market'valueof land'on ,a particulardate in: the two villages would be comparable. 26, Whileassessingthe fair nnarl<etvalue ofihe la'nd situated in village Burari, which was acquired-pursuantto notifications dated 24.07.1998and 18.07.2003issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition;Act,I had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence in rny decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter'being LA Appeal No.971/2008titled Raiba!&nr. l/c Union nf inH,: Qr^ In the said decision,l.had assessedthe fair marketvalue of agriculturalland at ?11,60,580.82per acre for CategoryA land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and- ?9,2,8,464.65per acre for CategpryCland pertpiningto the notifipitiondated 24.7.1998. The land acquiredpursuantto not|fic|tlondated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at ?19,20|568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ?17,28,512Aper acre f|r CategoryBland, In ./aiSingh'scase (supra). Ihad assessedthe fair marketvalueof land in 10 villages^s.;under:- S.No. VillageName' | Date of Notification under Section 4

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000

2.

3.. Hojambi Kalan Bawana

7.8.2000

7.8.2000

¶4Khera Khurd

11.9.2,000 LA.App.No.999/20108c connectedmatters Fair market value:(in lakhs per acre) .^14.75 for Category 'A' , ^14.3728 for Category's' fl4.,75 ^14.75 for Category 'A' ?14.38125 for ^Category 'B' ^14.835 for .Category 'A' ^14.46413 for Category 'B' , Pagel7 of22 \ V 5- , Narela

2.5.2001 • . n6.165 for Category 'A' n5.76087 for Category 'B' '

¶6Holambi Kalan

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

¶7Alipur •

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

¶8. Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 ?

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

¶9Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 ?16.745 for Category 'A' ?16,43811 for Category 'B'

¶10, Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655 12, Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 . ,^8.655 •

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth,

27.1.2003 •n9.435 for Category 'A' fl8.94912 for Category 'B' ^18.47539 for Category'C 16:, Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 ,^19.435 for Category 'A' . n8.94912 for Category'B' fl8.47539 for Category'C /q'/ 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& co^mectedmatters Government officers and^ fiad found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With, referet^ce to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah Vs. UP! & Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOl. Ill (2004} DLT 95 Hukum Sinah l/s. UP! and an unreported decision in, • LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah Vs. UP! & Prs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determinedon variousdatesbetweenthe years 1993 to 1996 and in relationto the minimum,price,fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said .decision as under:- . "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from- •time to time by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying minimum price.for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated-by me in para 7 above bring out two very importantfactsi ,, . relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of' agricultural land in Delhi over,the years commencin.g' from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990'minimum 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 ye.ars 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 thereafter by ^ 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 year. 1-990 and 1997 prices grows fairly . sharply and gpod corroborative evidence for this would' be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gairafs case (supra), which I have discussed ih-para 49 above. • • .

¶51^ I need to elaborate,a little more with respect to the decision in Gajrafs case. Discussing the y^vidence . pertaining to fair market, value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in paras'9 to 17 • ' • • •- I LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters 'Ipage19 of22 ' < the Court discussed, the valuation oh the basis of agriculturalyield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was •?95,000/- for multiple'croppedland,and having good irrigationfacilities and thus capitalizedthe land price at ?=9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussingthe second method of land prices, of comparable lands in the surrounding areas includi.ng potentiality,' in para 19 ,. • onwards the Court discussed the.matter with Veference.to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale instances fourid that.based on the said sale instancesand giving benefit of-industrializationthe land price would come to no,03,364/- per .acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered.the prices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.19,97 and thus worked, out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentialityhad'been well-factored in. when the Government issued the-minimum price notificationw.e.f. 1.4.1997,evidencedby the fact that even with respect to sale transactionsthe Court found that as against the minimum,price notified Sr lakhs per acre, sale instanceswere highlightingthat the price was ?10,03,364/-per acre. ' decision in MahenderSinnh''^ case, pertaining ? v'Cap Bawana, referred to by me iri para 49 above . 11!^^ ''^f^^enceto para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into, account by the Court which was projecting residential commercial and industrial future explgitation of. agriculturalland in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that no.twithstanding the Master Plan so projecting, and the lands theoretically,acquirinq a potentiality,the same had not translated into a reali.tv eyidenced.by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e the date of the notifiption,with which the Division Bench' was ' , Goncernfed,virtually no. developmenthad taken place in , village .Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploitedt^e potential. As I have already highlightedin para 49 above there, is a gap between what would be expected to,.be the market growth and what the market-actually, grows._ The' decisions in Gairafs caise and . 'LA.App.No.999/20r0&connectedmatters page20 of22 ; • -\>\ ; _ ' _. • j Mahender Singh's • case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 arid 1997 when prices rose by about

16.5% . per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the. acceleration.fell to between 10% per.annum to 11%' per annum. One reason, could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and probably ,: there w:a,s enough availability of developed land a'nd the hunger'of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners,, in 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 hereinabove for n'ot relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed,relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition .Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as: per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale .i'.,e..20.5.2002 the fair market value of agriculturaT lands would',be ^19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning' that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was .sold for ' ?5,39,690/- and ?70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would , mean that ^6,09,850/- (^5,39,690/- +^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ?17,74,10.9/- per acre as of ; the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by eitherpartiesotherthan the'minimumprice notified by the. •Government from time to time, I hold that the' Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principleand' has relied upon the correct evidence and has given'the correct appreciationsby suitablyincreasingthe price to.make up the interregnumperiod between the dates when, minimum prices were notified arid the date of the notifrcatidn issued under LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters• Page21 of22

\ > $-54 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 246/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus AJIT SINGH & ORS Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG