Union of India v. Anil Kumar & Ors

ORDER %

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm % 'V * % + IN the HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI , JudameniReservedOn: 19^^AUoust 2017 " i judgment DeliveredOn: 1^'^Septeniber. 2011 LA-APP. 999/2010 • CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Ot^ectiqn) .^^SINGhK ; ; : ..- Appellant . ' lyir.B.S.Mann, Advocate > Mr-Deepak Khosia, Advocate and .Mf.N.S.Negi,Advocate. " UOI (S( ANOTHER Through: M & Vs. Respondents r.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate MnSanjayKumar Patha^ iMrSachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Pand4 and Ms.Ki KaoniudiKiran, Advocates fopR-l -I AND ; t LA.APP. 1001/2010. . CM ^ f^ ADD 1^07/2r)10&CM IMO.151&/2011 1 •tA APP. 1009/2010,1 LA.APP; 1010/2010 • LA.APP' • 1036/2010&CM No.12865/2011,liiA.APP 5/2011 lAAPP 6/2011 &CM. No.6756/2011, La^^' LA.APP. 89/20HlJ,fL/\.APP.: 142/2011,; LA.APP. 160/2011, LK.APP. 161/2=011'LA APp" 163/2011 LA7\PP. 246/2011, LA.APP/24^^ 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011, LA:APP 347/2(311'iXAPP - 38^/2011. LA;APP: ifctw 407/2011' 406/2011, EA.APP. ^ (Relating to Notification u/Sec.- 4 dated Is dq >nnn. • Award No: 06/2002-200^,VillagelBhaSa^aSIS ' AND LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' : ^^age i:6f22 - : ; •.i ••o-i' ' . • : + LA;APP. 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. 88/2011 LA.APP.' 130/2011/ 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, LA.APP. 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP,346/2011,LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011&CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 3.74/2011, 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-BhalswaJahangirf^uri) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whetherthe Reportersof local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?,. . ' ' '• ' v

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

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

¶1I proceed^with an apologyto the reader by referringto a notification issued later jn point of .time and then to a notificationissued p.rior.inpoint of time;'but the reason is that the learned counsel' for the .land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notificationissued later and had jequired price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notificationwhich was issued earlierin pointof time.• ,2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue • estate of village BhalswajahangirPurl was acquired pursuant LA.App.Np.999/2010&comiected'matters 'Page2of22 to a notification dated

15.0'9.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public pUrposq, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on-17.04.20,01. 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.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired' land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or n.4,56,963 per acre. '

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the ledrned.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 oh .01.04.2000, notified vide .Circular dated

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

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the: Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period 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.999/2010&connectedmatters Page3of22 'V

5.. Another parcel, of land -ad-measuring'929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl was-acquired pursuant,to a notification issued .under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998, for the same, public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitationof JJ Cluster'. This was.followedby a declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on '04.08.1998. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, •whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalentto ?11.,20' lakhs.per acre.. -y;

¶6Dissatisfied with, the assessment made by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land owners sought reference under Section.18 of the Act. The Learned.ReferenceCqurt, in .the lead matter being LAC l\lo.lllA/2008 titled dhandrawati 1/? Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair marketvalue of the acquired land at m,4^,670/- per acre. The difference; in . the destination reached is on the sam^ reason as noted hereinab.ovepertainingto the notificationdated 15.9.2000i.e. the .learned Land AcquisitionCollectoradopting the land rate notified by the Governmeht with effect from. 1.4.1997 vide circulardated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the'notificationin question was issued on 30.7.1998and .the learned Reference Court granting enhancement © 11% per annum for the ' '.-interregnum period.

7., The Union of India as well as the land owners have , challengedthe assessmentmade by the Learned'.Reference , • i'- , • ' ; * • ' . . LA.App'.Nd.999/2010&connectedmatters .. , 'p^ge4of22 r ' Court by way, of the appeals arid cross objections mentioned above. ^ •

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

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

16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase in respect of developed residential and comrhercial properties owned by L&DO. , Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of.residential land in Azadpur; which, is stated to be close to village BhalaswaJahahgir Purl, was fixed at ^5830/- per square meter or ?2,35,92,400.92 per acre and it was;,,urged that if 50% is deducted towards developriient cost, the land owners should , be entitled to' ddhanced compensation' in' sum of ?1,17,96,.200/-per acre.- :

(b) The rate' charged by MCD'. for allotment of commercialplot in SanjayGandhiTransport Nagar, in ' terms of the Resolution No.705. dated

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD' decided to. allot developed plots td the transporters @ ^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 the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar@?4,500/-per square metre were urgeditobe material and good evidence. Relying on th,fese ^ LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . Page'5of22 ' : U'- -V "" (k contended that this sale deed should be relied'upon, . after making a reasonable deduction, towards development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped-agriculturaland in village ihalswa Jahangir Puri. Another-sale deed dated 24.03^2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuringl4-i6 bigha situated in, the revenue estate of village / Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami 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 Agreement to Sell (Exhibit P.W-6/1) which was executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly',whereunder land was agreed to ' he "sold on 05.08.1996 @ ?18 lakhs per acre. : It was . urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangir Puri and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of land in the said village as of.the date of the agreement tb sell • i.e. 5.8.1996. a

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay .Poddar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India relied on a Sale Deed .dated 05.06.1996(ExhibitR-2), whereunder1-03 bigha of land in village Bhalswa Ja:lnangir Puri was. sold at a price of a,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 notificationunderSection4 comes to ^,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available in, the same villag.e, .it would be imprudent to; travel to the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed-Handfor LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' , ' % Page7of22 documents, learned counsel for the land owners argued that the rate stated, in the-resolutions • aforenoted, which was applicable for the year, 1976. \ would evidence that fair market value of developed, larid comes to fl7,19,857/- per acre and it was urged that even if 5.0% deduction is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair . market value would come to ^8,59,928/- per;acre in the year 1976 and increasing the;same by 12% per ' annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 ;WouId be ?24,76,592/-per acre. \ i

(c) Learned counsel for the land owners' also placed reliance on the auction record of plots in • Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying On the brochure of DDA pertaining to the year;2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua.flats having plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Purl;at a. price ranging between ^23.72 lakh to ^28.4 lakh,- which according to learned counsel translates to a price of n4,36,36;363 per' acre and counsel urged that , suitable deduction could be effected therefrom . pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land.

(d) , Relying on a-sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 bi,gha was sold @ ?32,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, ' learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes .- to .?56,,93,163/-or til,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App:No.999/2010&connectedmatters : Page6of22 \N fixing the market value of undeveloped agricultijFal land having a vast area. Learned counsel,.also argued, that the learned .Land Acquisition.Collector has assessed,the fair maricetvalue of the land at a price much higherthan the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned .Reference Court. _ . 10. It may be noted that when judgmentwas reserv.edin the • above captibned matters on 19'^ August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgment in a batch of land acquisition appeals,lead matterbeing LA.App.No.266/2008t\t\e6Ja/Singh': \A. {/O/ &Ann in which similarargumentsas were advanced with respect'to similar evidence relied upon in the instant • appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response to the :arg.uments of learned ; counsel'for the land owners, the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response. 11, The topography,of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri ha:p come out in the depositionof Shri TrilokChand {HalqaPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008titled Rai Singh I/C7 f/n/nn ofIndia mwhich'he has explainedthe topologyofthe area while proving \he Aks Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa jahangir,Puri. .His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated.,in the North,,villages-Mukhmelpur and Burari are situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadli and Haiderpurare situated in the .West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of. village Jahangir, Puri. ' ' . LA.App.No.999/2010&coi-mectedmatters ... Page8of22 V V

¶12I may .additionally ^note that the lay out plan of tiie 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. VillagesBadli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway NO.1.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever, development took place,in the revenue estate of villageJahahgir Puri, post acquisition, of agricultural lands viri 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 1/^. Uninn nf India -1998 (V) AD (Delhi) A81, \t 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.! .

14.. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah Vs. iJOlX • Ann which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals^were reserved, for judgment, has since been pronouncedby me 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, 1 had noted that the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010&Gonnectedmatters Page9of22 constituted a 'V' at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point, proceeding in, different directions, at Sabzi IMandi. It needs to be highlighted that village B'halswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid ,and as explained hereihabove f I ' ' 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 1 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

25.0,4.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) , and the sale deed dated

24.03.2000, (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the sahie sale ,deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners' have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para (d) of para 8, hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, .1 have discai"ded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded-in paragraphs .21 to 23 which are reproduced hereurider:-

¶21Thfe 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

(g) _ ^63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference •Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair, market , value of agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on. the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was' purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha S.wami 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, marker value , of . a:gricultural . laiids on ,. 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 verfdee.

¶22As held in the;de.cisionsreported as 1995^ (1) 5GC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & drs^ Vs. JstiRohini &Anr. (Refer para-6) and 2009 (14) SCC 3:69 i^oiid. Raafucidin Vs. •.Land Acquisition Offlrpr .(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 determinethe market val|je.of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyerto paya higher.price.The true teist is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally w^ll informeelseller without being influenced by any .special icircumstancesor the fancy to buy.a particularpidce of la.nd. 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 prevailingprice?. .If a , buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he may pay a much, higher.price and this would not be a good;index of fair m'arket.,valueof the lari'ds;ihthe ' area...I would be failing if Ido not highlightthat the" Union of India had rdied upon the sale d.eed..dated

20.5.2002> which vyas accepted. by the learned .ReferenceCourt pertaining to the notificationdated

27.1.2003 where-underagricultura^l land in village Rajapur KaIan was sold by a.n agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice,i.e. ^17,74,109/- per acre, as against the price which corries to ?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ;?28 89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds ;LA;App.N6.999/2Ql,0& connectedmatters .px.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having ' .. iritrinsic-.evide of the fanciful price and .ex-facie • _-destroy'ea.chother.•• ; . . ..i, '' : ^hus, apart from the reasoning of the learned • Reference Court, with'which I concur, aforeTnoted 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 niore so for the reason Ifind that undervarious ' .• awards nearlybetween7,000.to8,000 bigha of land ' •' haw been acquired-andWhen the acquisition;is of i such large ah area, it would.makeall. the more a V ' • reason to be circuhnspect on sale deeds having • it^rinsicevidenceof the transactionbeingthe.resuS " or a fancy of the buyer, i would be failing mt to note, an unreported decision cited by learned - the decisL dSll .. if-'i of a batch of appeals, lead ^ matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao :^mnh i (since deceased)thru iRs Vs. nm ^ nra |t was_ i ' -highlightedthat the sale deed,therein,by which L&T : I P^'''^hased8 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 valLie of land in the . area was rejected by the Court ^and the priceiin- . question,With suitable"deductionon accountofthe . parcel .of.jand being'large, was, accepted by the- - ; .Court,and thus,even in the instantcases the 2 sale u ^"^stion ,i.e.: Ex.PW-1/2-and Ex.PW-1/3' • should be treated as-the basis to determine fair . argument ignores the reasoninq in the decisionof.the,Division Bench in paras 37 to ;

3.8 wherem the Division•Bench, did not accept • value,:inthe sale deed on its own logicas, indicative ., the market value,,but found that if the prfee • ^ ther^nw^ reduced by ,1/3-"d, the price.arrived at , would be the same as would be price arrivedat with , • referenceto.the average rke. of the saje deeds produced by the IJnion of India i.e. the sale deeds . EA,App.No.999/201Q&connectedmatters / 'Page12 of22 '' ! ..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 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 sum of ^3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year;of the sale was 1993 and, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995 and I

16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same surh arrived at as aforesaid .i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read; pedantically but meaningfully, it is not that the Court treated the _ sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years 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 ,go6d evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa jahangir Puri. ' -

¶17As regards the agreement to ^ell (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,.0.7.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at a5,70,000/-. .

¶18Mow, if the price^ as per the own showing of the land owners was ^5,70,00,0/- per acre as on 01.07!'2ba3, 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 puzzlethat in 1996 the price , was f18 lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the price fell • to ^15.7 lakhs per acre. 1need 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 sa|e deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair nnarket value.••of a large track of land had to be fixed.

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

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008lai Sinah ]/s. UP! f;. Anr i.e. where an abnormally high 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 determine fair market value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price Daid by a buyer smitten with fancy, whicsh observations have already been extracted by me hereinaboyei.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 , premisedon the decisionofthe.Supreme Courtreported as La! LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters-' , . ' '. Page 14 of22 ' Chand Vs. Union of India ?nnQ' n SCC 769, Similaris the reasoning pertaining to the, evidence relating to auction rates ' of residentiai plots or flats,by DiDA.; ,

¶21^In my decision dated 23.8.2011,inLA.App;iM6:.2'66/2Qa8 Jai Singhi Vs LiOi & Ors., j had extensivelydiscussedthe lavv declared by. the Supreme Court in case with, referenceto price at which developed plots were allotted! by differentagencies i.e. DpA and DSIDC. Relevantobservations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decisionmjaiSmall'scase are extracted hereunder;- ,- " ' •

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to iwhat was • the extent of plotted land .sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate,developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential:Scheme,developed V by DDA. Whetherit was 20°/o or 75%, we dp not know. • The inchoate evidence: has resulted, in the same factors, being'3 in number which were noted by thd Supreme Court in laLOmd's c^se (supra),-which ^ render this evidence as most unreliableto determine V , - the value of land in the subject cases. •9 ,'.

¶30It is; no doubt true, as held even by the learned -Reference Court, that with the develop,m^nt of Bawana Industrial.Area, Rohini ResidentiaTScheme •' and Narela ResidentialScheme, the subject lands had acquire^ a building..potentiality,,but the question' , would .be what, would be the value to whicl^ the bui|ding:.potentiality would translate itself. . . :

¶31,,1 hold thatthe.learned^ReferenceCourt, keeping' • m. view, the' observation,and^the findings, of the - . SupremeCourt in case (supra) has rightly , rejected said evidence as reiiable,- 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.999/20lb&coimectedm^ . , . ' 'Page 15 of22 ' .

¶22Highlighting that in Lai Chands case (.supra) the Supreme Court held that.such raw data was meaningless and was top inchoate wherefrom fair ;market value could be crystalJized.

¶23I reiterate the .reasohing to hold that price at which MGD allotted developed plots in;Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed pJOts:and flats Would be irrelevant to determinefair marl<et value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to price notified tby-L&Dp forttharging 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 \n Laf Cha'ncfs rc^se fsupm Vwhprpin this .kind of • evidence was specifically discussed • and discarded with • reference, to-: village Rithala where lands were Acquired for • -Rohini.ResidentialScheme,Inegatethe plea for compensatidn ; to be:e.nhancedwith referenceto L&DO;rates noting';that'Iam' . concerned with large tracks ofglands "ad-measuring:''758.01 b^ : ' • , ' , ' ;.25. From the topology ofthe area and as pfer the testimony of Trilok.Chand (Halka Patwari) who'appeared as PW-.2 in LAG NQ.112A/2008it emerges that Village Burari is on the east of. .village,.Bhalsw.a Jahangir Pun and indeed the plan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e.^ Bhalswa Jahangir Puri . and Burari are separated by the outer ring, road as, we travel: towards, iviubarka Chowk from" the Tibetan Resettlement ^ colony adjoining the famous Gufudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The ' two are adjoiningviliagesseparatedby 'Outer Ring;Road' and . ,' ' LA.App.No.999/2010&• connectedmatters . : Page16 of22 T"— —r ^ V-dp thus the fair market value of land on a particulardate in the two villages would be comparable; 26, Whileassessing.thefair marl<etvalueof the land situated in Village Burari, which Was acquired pursuantto notifications dated 24,07.1998 and 18.07,2003issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, I 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 LA Appeal No.971/2008titled Ra/ba/A Or. Union nf lnrii. Qrs, In the said decision,Ihad assessedthe fair marketvalue of agriculturalland at ?li,60,580.82per acre for CategoryA rand, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ^9,28,464.65per acre for Category Cland pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1S98. The land acquired,pursuantto notification,dated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at ?19,20,568/-peracre for CategoryAland and ?17;28:512/-per acre for Category Bland. In y^/case {supra), \ had S.Np. Village Name Date of Notification under Section 4 , Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 n4.75 for Category 'A' n4.3728 for Cateaorv 'B'

¶2.Holambi Kalan

7.8.2000 ^14.75

¶3Bawana

7.8.2000 , . < ^14.75 for Category 'A' n4.38125 for Cateaorv 'B'

¶4- , « ^— Khera Khurd

11.9.2000 ' ^14.835 for .Category 'A' fl4.46413 for Category 'B' LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Q

¶5Narela

2.5.2001 n6.165 , for Category 'A' n5^76087 for Category's'

¶6Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' fl6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶7Alipur

22.8.2001 n6.745-for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd : 22.8.2001 ?

16.745 for Category 'A' ^16;43811 for Category's'^

¶9I Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 fl6.745 for Category 'A' n

6.43811 for Category 'B' ID. Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ^18.655;. ,12. ' ShahpurGarhi

23.5.2002

¶13Holambi Kllan 2f5.2rt2 ' ^18.655 " Alipur 2l5.2iD^02 n8.655 V iq. Sanoth

27.1.2003 ^19.435 ' for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ^16.47539 for Category'.C

¶16. Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 ?19'.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ^18.47539 for Category 'C 21: \vy jaj Singh-s case (supra). I had, also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Governmentfronh. time to time,and found the same not to .be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojuiectedinatters ' .:Goverrnment"officei-s ahd had found not only ratior^ale but a .reflection of .urbanization impacting ' such increase. : With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this ^ Court reported as 2006 ly AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah':VF;.:IJO! Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram ChandRr.t/<r.um i|i (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs: Z/(9/ and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005Mahender Sinah Vs. 'UO! & Qr^. decided •oh 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determinedon variousdates betweenthe years 19^3 to 1996 and in relationto the minimum pricefixed by the , Goyernment I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of. the said decision as under> ' , / ' . ' ' ' ' " . • • • •

¶50The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the various, notifications isscied from time to time by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying minimMm.price for agricultural lands in Delhi as •tabulated . ' Isy nie in para 7 above bring but two very impoHtantfacts' relevant to determine the growth/rise in the«prices of agricultural Land in Delhi pver the years comijiencihg. frbm the year 1990. .As of 27.4.1990minimum price was ^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as ;of 1.4.1997i.e. the increaseis ^5.35, lakhs spread over 7/ years which gives us,:a 115.0,54%increase in-:7 years and th6 averageprice increasewould be 16.43:6%;. 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 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would < be .the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in • • \ case (supra), which I: have discussed in para 49 above. • : -• ^ ^

¶51I'need to elaboratea little more with respectto the decision in Gajrafs case. Discussing the. evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in : village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in paras,;9to 17 . LA.App;No.999/2010&connectedmatters •/* • Page19 of22-the^ CoLjrt, dis'Gusse(j the, yg|yg|:jQp p the basis of agriGulturalyield and found that thegross returnper ac^^^^ per.annum was ^95,000/- for multiple,cropped land and having good irrigationfacilities and th,us capitalizedthe •land price at f9.5 lakhs,per acre. Discussingthe second method of land price's of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in: para 19 onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to. land prices in adjoining"village Bhorgarh where FGI • Godowns. had come up and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances.and giving ; benefitof industrialization'theland 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 meari average figure of ?9,76,121/-per acre for Category 'A^ Tu" per acre for Category/B' lands. : The decision highlights that the potentiality^had been . '• well-factored in-when the Government•issued the minimum price notificationw.e.f. 1.4.1997,evidencedby . me fact that even with respect to.sale transactions the Court found that aS: against the minimum price notified highlig^htingthatthe price was mo,03,364/-per^cre. / decision in MahenderSingh'pertaining ^ Bawana,;referred to by me iriilDara 49 above ^ghlights:with referenceto para 28.to 5:tofthe decision^., that the Master Plan for Delhi 199,0.had ,been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, • commercial and industrial' future exploitation, of agriculturalland in Delhi and on the issue of pptentiality had noted, that notwithstanding the Master Plan sb' projecting and the. lands 'theoretically acquiring; ai-potentiality,the same had not translatedInto a reality' evidencedby the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date'.'.; of the notification with which the Division Bench was ; concerned,virtually no developmenthad taken place in Village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and" nobody had exploitedthe ppteihtiai. As I have already;highlightedin,^ para 49 abo^e there is a gap between Mat v\/ould be expected, to ibe the market growth and what the. market actually grows. , The, decisions m Gairafs case and:; ; LA.App.No;999/20l:0&connectedmatters' ; -Page20 of22 . Mahender Singh's case Highlight. that ^potentiality translated itself into a reality between

1.990. and 19;97 when prices rose by about

16.5% per annum a;nd thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the.requisite nhomentum and the acceleration felPto ' • between 10% per annum to 11% per ahnuni:. 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 arid probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of ; , the market got saturated. v., - ^ 53,. The 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 whichrl have gi.yen , further, reasons,in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove .for not, , relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon . by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference'Court has held that a$ per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e; 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands: would iDe ^19,16,040/- per apre 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,i60/- was .paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (?5i39,690/- +; ;?70,160/t) were spent would yield the price fl7,74,109/- per acre as, of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed oh record by either parties other than the minimum price riotifiedby.the Government from time . to time, I hold that, the Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted-the correct principle and has relied upon the cofrect evidence and has given the correct' appreciations by suitably increasing the, price to make up the i.nterregnumperiod/between-the dat^wheri miniitium prices ' were notified and the date of the nptii-ifcatipn issued, under , 'LA.Apji.No.999/2010 eonnectedmatters ',r Page21 of22 • -. I.' . Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct;and finding no scope to furtlier enhance-thecompensationor to reduce,the same (: dismiss ail appealsand cross objections,whetherfiled by the land ownersorthe Union ofIndia, ' • . ' ,

¶29ileavethe partiesto beartheirown cost, ' . ' "I—T . nil (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) SEPTE|\1BER19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010&comectedmatteis Sage22qf22

$-52 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 244/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus ANIL KUMAR & ORS Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG