Union of India v. Raj Kumar Yadav & Ors

ORDER %

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm - - J.. *• • % + ; IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DEI_HI /udameht Reserved On^ /W//c/- 7n 17 Judgment Delivered On:. 19^^^Sentember. >0 77 U.APP. 999/2010 & • : CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Ot^ectibn) R/M SINGH^ . ^Appellant ^ ' Through; I\fr;B.S.|Vlann,Advocate , Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and ; . M'"-N.S..Negi,Advocate. " Vs. • . > • UOI &ANC^HER _ ^ ' Respondents Through:. Mr.SanjayPoddar;SeniorAdvocate ^ 'Si|Mr;SanjayKumar Pathak> Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Pa'nda and |Vis;K Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates-fo:r).R-l AND No.12885/2011, LA.AP LA.APP. 1009/2010, + LA.APP. 961/2010, LA.APP. 100l/201(j Mn I^PQI^/OmT I A Anr^ ^ ^ CM 1007/2010 & CM Nd.l5i8i/2011 LA.APP; . 1010/2010 LA APP. 1^6/2010&-CM No.12865/2011,LA.APPi 5/2011 ilAAPp' ^°-6756/2011, LA.APP. 38;^0 cm ^ LA.APP. 41/2011,;LA.APP. 89/2011 LA.APP. 142/2011,, LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2011'"Ia"APP" '246/2011, LA.APP.:^ISiJ LA.APP. 298/2011, LA:APP. 347/2011;Ia.APP 386/2011, LA.APP. 387/2dll' iLA^Pp" 407/201^LA-APP..3:9:;/2011,LA.APP. 40;6/2Olli;iliai.APP;. (Relating to Ndtifiqation,u/Sec.i 4 dated 15 OQ' i Award No. 06/2002-2003,Villagei-BhalswaJahangirJ AND >• • • & LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters- •> '•?a^l of22 ^ ' ;i. V, + , LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP, 88/2ail 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. .24472011, 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. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, LA.APP. 382/2011, LA-APP. 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. .408/2011 LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP..414/2011. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated

30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001,Village-BhalswaJahangirPuri), CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

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

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

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

¶1Iproceed with an apologyto the reader b.y referringto a • notification issued later in. point of time aind then to a notificationissued prior in point oftime; but the reason is that-the learned' counsel for the land owners had: addressed arguments with respect to the notificationissued later and had required price to. be suitably reduced pertaining to, the notificationwhich was issued earlierin pointoftime,

2.. Land measuring 758-0i;bighasituated in the revenue estate of village BhalswajahangirPurl was acquired pursuant LA,App.No.999/20l0&connectedmatters ^ • Page2of22 to a notification dated

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, nannely, '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. . " .

¶3Dissatisfied 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 Raj Sinah 1/5.. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired' land at ^3,03>534 per bigha om4,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. th;e 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 jDeriod from ,

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 . of the - Land Acquisition Act was-issu,ed 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 ?13,8'2 lakhs per acre; LA.App.No.999/2010&.connectedmatters .Page3of22

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

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of, JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 5 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 i2.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the. acquired land at .?2,33,333 per bi^ha which is equivalentto ?11.20.lakhs per acre. •

¶6. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land owners sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in .the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/20-08 titled Chandrawati 1/? Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair marketvalue of the acquired ' land at m,46,670/- per acre.. The difference;in the destination reached is on the same ,reason> as. noted hereinabovepertainingto the notificationdated 15.9.2000i.e. the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoradopting the land rate notified, by the Government with effect from, 1.4.1997 vide' circular.dated25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notificationin question was issued on 30.7.1998and the learned Reference. Coui^t granting enhancement @11% per annum for the interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as well as the land owners have challengedthe assessmentmade by the Learned Reference .• LA.App,.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • Page4of22 Court by way of the appeals and cross'objections mentioned above. ^ • . • • ,

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

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

16.04.1999 (Exhibit, PW-4/1), whereby it ' disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase,in respect of developed residential' and commercial ' properties owned by L&DO. Relying 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 Bhalaswa jahangir Puri, 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 development cost, the land owners sho.uld be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum -of v," • ?1,17,96,200/-per acre. '

(b). The rate charged by MCD for, aliotment of comniercial 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 @ ,^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 urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these .LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • Page5of22 • documents, learned counsel for the land bwners argued, that the rate stated in 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 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 would be ^24,76,592/-peracre.

(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 fiats having plinth area of:69 square me.tre 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 ^14,36,36,363 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 bigha was. sold @ ?32,40,300/- on 25.04.^01, learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes . to ?56,93,163/- ,or ?il,86,169/- per bigha; It was •LA.App.No.999/2010.& connectedmatters • ; Page6of22 contended that this sale deed should be relied Upon, . ' after mal<ing a reasonable deduction, towards . develppment cost to determine the fair market value : ' of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl. Another:sale deed dal^ed 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-I5/2)', whereby land measuring ,4-16 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, (ej Learned .counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was executed by one Shri Khushi Rarh in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on ,05.08.1996 @ ^18 lakhs per acre. Mt was urged that the land was in the revenue estate, of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and^ thus was pressed in, . aid. as good evidence of fair market value of landjn ^ the said village as of the date of the agreement to sell •i.e.

5.8.1996.

¶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), whereunder 1-03 bigha of land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl' was sold at a price of ^1,40,000 and:urged that even if 12% appreciation per annum is tp be given on said value, the price as on the date of the. notificationunderSection4 comes to n,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 village or to adopt the price of-developedland for LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page7of22 w 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-market value of the land at a price much higherthan the one reflected,in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference,' Court.

¶10It may"be noted that when judgmentwas.reservedin the 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.266/2008titled 1/?. IJOl &Aiir. in which similarargumentsas were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instaht 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 Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come out.inthe depositionof Shri TrilokChand Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC Np.ll2A/2008ytitled ; Vq Union ofIndia in which he has explainedthe topologyof the area While proving the Ai<5 Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa.' JahangirPurl. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipun and Libaspur are situated,in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badll and Haiderpurare situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of village Jahangir Purl. // LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' Page8of22 ]V

12.; I 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.. Villages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l. ,13. It needs to be. highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue .Estate of said village was for re-settlement of slum and J..J. dwellers i.e. the .' . character of urbanization in the area was of a kind where, potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah l/s. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir Purl 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.CIusters. . .

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinaii l/s. UOi Ann which vyas 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 ! 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-WestDelhi being revenue estate of' villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, , Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd. and Bawana, I had .noted that :the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page9of22 .constituted a .'V' at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e.'NH-1. and Rohtak Roacj J.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common, point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi jviandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir , Puri is. outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabove . , , , and abuts towards the east of NH-1. ,

¶15In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time 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 , • •

25.04.2001 (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 hereinabove.. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, 1 have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which.are reproduced hereunder:-

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, forme,r, fair market value for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ . •' • ?63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence 'to determine fair market value of . agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PyV-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 . , LAApp.Nb.999/2010&connectedmatters . Page10 of22 been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair marl<et value of agricultural lands on the ; ^reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony of PyV-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 Lane/ Acquisition-Officer Eluru Ors. Vs. isti Rohini &Aiir. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC Moiid. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition . "(Refer .para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidenceby virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso factq treated, as an exemplar sale deed to - determine the market value of land in an area for the .reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyerto pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing' buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being .influenced by any special circumstancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpiece . of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied, the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topologyof the area and the. prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I do not highlightthat the, , Union of India had rejied upon the sale deed dated

20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notificationdated

27.1.2003 where-underagricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by. an agriculturist,to an agriculturistfor a much lesser price i.e. ^7,74,109/- ' /, per acre as against the price which conies to .^63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28 89 /lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 -sale' deeds, LA.App'.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' Page11 of'22 Ex.PW-1/2.and Ex;PW-l/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

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

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals lead ' matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao 'sinnh • "O! ^ highlightedthatthe sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the' .ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the. price reflected, therein could not be. treated as a good evidenceof value of lahd in the area was rejected by the Court and the price in question,with suitabledeductionon accountofthe • parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instantcases the 2 sale u .1 question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be^ treated,as the basis to determine fair' l^arketva|ue. The argumentignores.the reasoning, in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the val.ue, in the sale,deedon,its own logic as indicative of thq market value,, but found that if the ^price - ther^Ti w^. reduced by 1/3^^ the price Arrived:at would be the same as would be price arrivedat with reference.to-the average rate of the sale deeds ' produced by the'Union of India i.e. the sale deeds • LA.App.No.999/2010&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/- w'^hich was near 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

24.7.1995 and

16.11.1995 and the .Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum,, arrived at as aforesaid, i.e. ^2,15,160/-.: In Other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but' meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the saie deed in question as the. basis for if it was so, • . the-appreciation for 2 yea.rs had requi.red 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..land, in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.

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

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

¶18Mow, if the price,, as per the own showing of the land owners was ?15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, it is .LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page13 of22 nr , difficult to compreiiend tine 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 ?18 lakhs pfer 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.. I have discussed this issue in my decision dated

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Sincjh ]/s. UQ] & Anr. i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel' of land is with . evidence of neither the .buyer nor the seller being well-informed and there being a special-feature qua the land and' have held, the same not to be good evidence to determine fair' market value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have^ already 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 TransportNagar, 1do not find; any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned ' .ReferenceCourt containedin.paragraphs29 and 30, which are premisedon the decisionofthe SupremeCourt reportedas La! , LA.App.No.999/2010&, connectedmatters Page14 of22 Chand l/s. Union 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 jai Singh 1/5-. UOJ & Qrs., I had extensivelydiscussed the law declared by the Suprerrte Court in Lai Chands case with referenceto price at which developed plots were'allottedby differentagencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevantobservations and findings in para 29 to 31 ofthe decision,in lai'Singh'scase • 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 Residential Scherrie developed 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 deterrnine • • the value of land in the subject cases.

¶30It is no doubt true, as held even by the learned Reference Court,: that with the ' development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela ResidentialScheme, the subject lands had^ acquired a building potentiality, but the .qjuestion ' 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 • SupremeCourt in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected, said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentialityrelating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal,with the same while r shall be discussing as to what should. be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No'.9'99/2010&comected,matters PageI5 of22 y., , <22. Highlighting that in La! Chands case (supra) thi ; Supreme Court-held that su'ch raw data was-rrieanihgiess and v., was too'.. inchoate wherefronn. .fair nnarket value could be V :crystaIlized. - ' ' v ' ' .23. I reiterate.the reasoningto hold that price at which.MCD^ ., allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport IMagarand- .price at which pDA 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 relatesto developed plots and, on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of : evidence was specificaily discussed and discarded with reference to village Rithala Where lands were acquired for Rohini ResidentialScheme,| negate the plea for compensation.- to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that'I am \ concerned with large tracks of lands' ad-rrieasuringi758.01'^ : . bigha and 92.9.05 bigha. , ' ' ' •

¶25From the topology of the area and as pe^the]testimony, of .Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari).who, appeared as PW-2 In LAC ' • L^ ; " I Noai2A/2008 it emerges tfiat village Burari is on the^east of; . ' village BhalswaJahangir Puri and indeed the ;.plan':forDelhi • -would reveal that .the tvyo villages i.e., Bhalswa Jahangir Puri ' . and Burari are separated by the outer "ring road as we travel towards •IVIubarka-Chdwk from the Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka .tila. The ; ; two are adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'Outer Ring Road' andV ,. '. LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedma-tters ' , Page16 of22 thus the fair market valye of land on a particulardate in the two villages would be cornparable.

¶26While assessingtliefair matet vaiue of tiie iand situated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuantto notifications dated 24.07.1998and 18.07.2003•Issued under Section 4, of the Land AcquisitionAct, I had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced or)

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeais, lead matter being LA, Appeal No.971/2008titled Raiba!&nr. lA Unicin nf mm. 'x:, Ors, in the said decision,Ihad assessedthe fair marketvaiue of agriculturalland at ?11,60,580.82per acre,forCategoryA land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land' and ,?9,28,464.65per acre for Category Cland pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuantto notificationdated 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. \nMLSingh'sz^s^^supra). I had . S.No. -t Village Name • Date of Notification under Section 4 Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000

514.75 for Category 'A' ?14.3728 for CatdQorv 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8.2000 ^14.75

¶3A Bawana

7.8.2000 n4.75 for Category 'A' '' ^"14.38125 for Cateqorv 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.9.2000

514.835 for .Category 'A' ,?14.4fe413 for Cateqorv 'B' .EA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters — — .. . . ' \ ,

¶5. Narela

2.5.2001 ?I6.165 . for Category 'A' ?15.76087 far Category 'B'

6.; Holambi Kalan"

22.8.2001 ^16.745 fcir Category 'A' n6.43811 far Category 'B' [

¶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' n 6.43811 for Category 'B' ; 9. Rajapur Kalan \22.8.2001 ?16.745 for • Category 'A'

06..43811 for Category 'B'

¶10, Sanoth

7.12.2001 n7.295 ,

11.. Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ^1,8.655

12.. ShahpurGarhi • 23.5.2002 ^18.655

13.- Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 nB.655

¶15Sanoth

27.1.2003 ^9.435 for Category 'A' ! ?18.94;912 for Category'B' ?18.47539 for Category 'C ,

¶16.Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 n9.435 fon Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ^18.47539 for Category 'C. /^/' Singh's case (supra) I had alsO: ahalyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time to time and found the same not to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.•999/2010& cojiiiectedmatters .. 'W •\ "i Governrrientoffiicers and^ found noii only;rationale but a reflection of urbanization inipacting/such i^ncrease.. 'With •• preference to-the decisions of four Division Benches of this," ; / / Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 GairaiSinah l/s..UP! & :; . . Ml., 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UP!. Ill (2004) ^ 95 Hul<um Sinah Vs. UP! and an unfeported decision in , ; ,,LA.App.No.866/2005MahenderSinah Vs. UPr& Prs. dprideH V -•/ ' • 11^5.2006wherein based,on sale deeds anrfothdr evidence• , i . land price was determinedon variousdates betweenthe years 1993 to 1996 and in relationto the minimum pricefixed by the Government: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 issued from :' . time to tihne by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agriculturaUands in Delhi as tabulated.: by rrie in para 7 above bring,out two very importantfacts I relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of' . agricultural land in Delhi over the years cohimencing from 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 whichgives us a 115.054%increase in 7 years arid the average.priceincreasewould be ,16.436%. The price ' ^ '"'se over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter byI , 11% for.the next 2 yearsand 11.5%for the next year i.e. . of. 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization, ; . : = ; between the year 1;990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and: good corroborative evidence for this would-be the decision of :the Division Bench of tNs Court ih' .- / ; • Gairafs case (supra), which 1, have discussed in para'49 above. • ; .' need to elaborate a little more with resjDectto the, decision in Gajrafs Q^sQ. Discussing the evidence, , . pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land In village Holarabi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in paras"9to 17 • ,LAApp,.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . "••• Page19 of22 : ' r- ' • f the Court disGussed the yaluatibh on the basis of agriculturalyield.and found that the gross returnper acre • per annuh^ was ^95,000/-for multiple^cropped [and and ^ having good irrigationfacilities and thus capitalizedthe ^ land price.atf9.5-lakhsper.acre. Discussing:the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including, potentiality, in para 19 onwardsthe Courtdiscussedthe.matter with reference,to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FG'I Godowns had come up and based on-^sale instances found that based on the said sale instancesand giving benefit of industrializationthe. land price would come to ?10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then consideredthe prices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the m4n • average figure of ?9,76,121/-per acre for Category 'A' l^ds^and ?9,51,a21/-,per acre for Category/B' l^ds: , 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 safe transactionsthe. Court found that as against the hiinimum price notified. hr '^"^hs per acre, sale,instanceswere •. ^'9h''ghtingthat the price was,no,03,364/-peracre. in MahenderS/nah's cas^ -pertaining to^villageBawaha, referred to by irie in para 49 above. highlightswith referenceto 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-i^.esidential com,merciar and. industrial future .exploitation of agricultural[and in Delhi and on, the issue of :potentiality had. noted that notwithstanding the Master. Plan so •. projecting .. and . the lands theoretically acquiring ^ potentiality,the same had not translatecS into a reality evidencedby the fact that till the year 1996 i.e the date of the .notificatibn with Which the. Division Bench was ' concerned,virtually no developmenthad/taken place in village Bawana and. Holambi Kalan and nobody had' : exploitedthe potential.. As I have already highlightedin - para 49 above there is a. gap between what would be" ' expected to be the market growth anql what the.market actually grows. The decisions in Gairafs caise and;' LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • " -Page20 of22 ' ' v • Mahender Singh's case highlight that' potentiality ' , . translated itself into a reality between -1990 and 1^97 when prices rose by about

16.5% per •annunrl and thereafter the extended potentiality flid not translate with the requisite momentum and the Acceleration fell to • betweeh 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 residentiar, commercial and industrial arid probably there was enough availability of developed land, and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical, eviderice in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereofthe learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given , further reasons in paras 21 arid 22 hfeiriabove for not ^ ; relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds,'to determine fair , , market value, we have with, us the sale ,deed relied upon • - c 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 j.e; 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural'lands would be : . ^19,16,040/-^per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning. that 1 bigha and 13. biswa. ofJand which :Was sold.,for, . ^5^39,690/-and ?70,160/-was paid as istamp duty would mean that f6,09,850/- (?5,39,690/- ?70,160/-) were' ^spent .would,yield the price ?=17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.' / , - . • absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than the minimum price notified by the Gbvernment from time to time, I hold, that the Learned, . ' ReferenceCourt has rightly adopted the correct principleand- , has relied upon the correct eviderice and has given the correct appreciations by suitably;increasing the price to niake up the interregnum period,between the dates when minimum prices^ Were notified and the date of the notification issued under . •LA.App.No.999/201G&eoimectedmatters , Page21 of22 Section4of the Land AcquisitipnAct and finding no scope to furtlier eniiance tlie compensationor to reduce tlie same i dismiss ail appeals,andcross objections;whetherfiled by the: land ownersor the Union of India. ' ' i'. •

¶29•Ileavethe partiesto beartheirown cost. ' SEPTEMBER19, 2011 , mm LA.App,No.999/2010&cpimectedmatters -r~r (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-49 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 241/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathal<, Advocate for UOI. versus RAJ KUMAR YADAV & ORS Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG