Smt Vidhya Devi & Anr v. Union of India

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. '. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb ! * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) + LA.APP.1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA ..... Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita,Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. JN-lr.RaghuvinderGodara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlav^^at,Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF n^IA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA LA.APP.412/20C8 & CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.452/2008; LA.APP.453/2008; LA.APP.688/2008 & CM.No.5990/2010 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.697/2008 & CM.No.433/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.701/2008 & CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; LA.App. No 1195/2008 & connccted Appeals of Village: Bharthal IA.App. No. 294/?010 & connected Appeals of Village Biiwasan 1A.App. No. 111/;:010 & connected Appeals of VillagePochanpiir LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA APP 776/2008' LA,APP.777/2008;LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections)' LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM No 931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008& CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM No 806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008• LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008' LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM No 779/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections)- LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008-LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008' LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM No 572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM No 17340/2008 LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP 1046/2008 CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1049/2008& CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008 ^ CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008 CMN 17^6/9000^/^ CM.No.4i6/2009rC?oss-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008& f (^^o^-'^-Objections);LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & LM.NOJ52/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No 1557/2011 aTppSri CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections) ^ CM.No.546/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections) Ta'app LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections) & CM No 2448/9^^^ CM.NoJ7302/2008(Cross-Objections);LAAPP.1086/2008 & CMJ^o.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No619/2009 LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP1095/2008-CMNo3839^2009^c (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1108/2008& CMN0I82S LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008&. cS'383mnnQ LA.APP.1111/2008;LA.APP.1112/2008& CM.No3831/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1113/2008& CM.No.382,6/2009 JA 5/2008; LA.APP.1116/2008;LA APP 1121/2008 LA.APP.1129/2008&CM.No.550/2009(^Xs ObeS 1^31/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections) 1135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections) T ^ CM.No.17283/2008('Cross-Objections)-LA APP 1140/2008 LA.APR1156/2008;LA.APP.1157/2008;LA.APP.115^20081CMNo 77^^^^^^^^^^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1159/2008;LA.APP.1161/2008-LA APP 1166/9008 LAAPP,"'S (Cross-Objectfr):LA.APP:;!6S 7a ' LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.1172/2008-LA APP 1173/9008 IaIpP I'sMOOs' '-A-APP-'179/2008,,'LA^APP.nglCOOS 7a ' LA.APP.1183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009rCross-ObiertinnO LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.1185/2008;LA.APP.1186/2008&CM.No.7013/2009 LA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&corincjctedAppeaksofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur % -I.- LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.l192/2008 T !94/2008; LA.APP.l195/2008; LA.APP.l197/2008 AADD il ^ ^^•No.6935/2009(cross-0bjections);LA.APP.1200/2008 r't'^DD 1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP1211/2008 CMr6 LA.APP.1223/2008;La.APP.1225/200^ CM 9^ LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& ^A AT?;. (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA APP 1252/2008-LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008:LA.APP:1279C008: LA.APP.1280/2008;LA.APP.1281/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008-LA APP 1284/2008- ^^APpiiiT' LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/M09;' L^S' LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009-TAAPP 7Q/?nnQ ^ CM.No.7103/2009.(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/2009• LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 fCrntsts-m-iif^f-fi" LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP 121/2009-LA APP 135/90^09' LA.APP.I36/2009; LA.APP.137/2009: LA.APRlSg lIIpp Z: LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP144/2009-LA APP 145/200q' LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.187/2009: LA.APP.1S9' lIIpP qS: LA.APP.197/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APP.199/2009' LA APP 201/2009-' LA.APR202/2009;LA.APP.203/2009;LA.APP.208/2009& CM No 7027/2009 (Ci-oss-ObjectionsJ;LA.APP,210/2009& CM No 970/2011 rCrn.cnw, LA.APP.2n/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.ApSo09 LaS^S' (Cr;4'obS'l^^^ LTAtp246/C -SS Si S Piiiiiii 5S=~is==.=S (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13 12 2000 issued under Section4of the Land AcquisitionAc 1894 1 a . xr 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBh~DeIhi) (GRID-B) Res^ved on: Decp.mhp.r08. 2011 Pronouncedon: Janvnrv0^ ?nfy LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DE\/ENDERKUMAR a , rru ^ > Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lAApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA An^ ^ connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan A.App, No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forDDA. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 11/2010 53/2010 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 49/2010 54/2010 59/2010 223/2010 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 725/2010 731/2010 764/2010 364/2010 99/2010 C.M.No.964/2011(Cross-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 . 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,"VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND lA.App. No, 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l7\,App,No, 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur '% (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPQCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29,30, 33, 36to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar, SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011' 536/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lAAER XA.APP. L LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/20U)_ 293/2010 Tr772{ 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/20] ] 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L Ta.app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 24^/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 17\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan uA.App. No. in/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur I'age 5 of 29 /- (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

¶2Acquisition process for planned development of 'Dwarka Phase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13^^ December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e.. Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@ ^13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field —with top soil) and @ ^"12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheir acquired LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. Mo. 294/2010 & connacted Appealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page6of29 f agriculturallands, appellantshad soughtreferenceunder Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ^13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board ra. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr.,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 See 66l\ Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (PB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 111 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land'Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, lA.App. No.:i95/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharthal lA.App.No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page7of29 <-• Gujarat and Am., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC \15, Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. UriionofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshhhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority,

(2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal iSi Ors vs. Union of India,

(1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhule Ram vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationof the acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over a periodof time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes throughthe land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur pgggg IS and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanldlearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands onthe westernside of VillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslma-pto highlightthatthe boundar}^ of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16^' October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24"' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wiongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P, Rama LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^g f Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the' acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochahpur to highlight i that the sale price reflected therein varied from '^52 lacs to ^62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court inAnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageof sale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlorates for determiningthe marketvalueof the acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learned counsel,for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Government Ibr allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepinginview the location,situationand potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pagel0of29 / sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "ignores the acknowledgementon the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. , (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) b) Does not account for the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid. down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaM' has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunder'acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSuprem.eCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Llon'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averagingof different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certan land. f Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoringthe material which indicate that the marketvalueofthe landis much higherthan 15 lacper acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) see 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No.l framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notification,ofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal M'as changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74'^amendment of the ConstitutionofIndia, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCowisellor was electedfrom there. No Panchayatelections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (, .... auctionedsimilarlysituatedland as commercialblocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe subjectland is.even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthepossibilityofchangeof the use ofthe landalthoughthe landwas acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II It is reiteratedthat the land use of VillageDhoolSiras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial Pf^^tiality;ofthesaidland In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar (LAf (2010) -3 see 661 it was heldthatthepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhasgot buildingpotentialityto be used jor.buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildingsare to be treatedas house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose ofputting up residential quarters.As aportionofthe landis beingconsideredas hmse site, the adjoininglands have the potentialof beingputin betteruse as housesitesin the nearfuture."

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual detailshave been providedwith aprayerthat the appellantsofthis appeal be treatedat par with the co-appellantsofthe otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urgedby Mr.AnandYaday.Advocatethatthe effectof IA ^ connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan • -App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • :i-urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredinMaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)& Qrs. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DetemiinedRates, ReservedAuctionRates of the area are relevantto determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSenior.Counselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence for determi^nationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrehanceupon the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SushilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat sharp increase in price in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.App. No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwa^n LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur /I and the purchaser as no prudent person having loiowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1^' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per amium, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that thereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceof acquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@ 12%) per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the-decisionscited,what emergesis thatthetrue marketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ITX.App. No. 294/20108i connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir Paggis of 29 f seller and the best evidence is the comparablesale instances. While dealing with the questionofpotentialvalue ofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cit)/or the town or villagewhich had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as the casemay be;

(Hi) possibility^ofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up onthatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityorcloseproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surroundings areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

(vii) landsaroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demandfor building purposes, to specify a few. "

¶18The potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildmgpurposesdepends upon alargenumberof factors.For the said puipose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purposefor LA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiteratingthe relevant factors for determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court inAtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be a groundto discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. M.K RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated haying similar advantage availableto them even as regards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing the compensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex CourtinKiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage.

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions,hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade .by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIJwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pagelyof29 1/1 "tlae legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highestof the exemplars,which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the marketprice. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are with referenceto dissimilarlands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determinationof fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts orjumps. 17\.App.No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan LA.App. No.111/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur On the other hand, in urban or serrii-urban areas, where the development isfaster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreper year, during the nineties. Oh the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1%) or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific . evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any sp)ecific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a feM> years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market-value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or i LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur , Page19 of29 lA acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts inprices affecting the very standard ofincrease." '

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtinHarymna StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods.Whatwas saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided anda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe samenotification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which variedfrom f 52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaidsale exem.plars,i.e., Sale Deeds U.App. No. H95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal [^0-2.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IW.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentuponthe natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establishthe advantagesattached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaidsale exemplars been got examined,then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay suchahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas'^Nhohad purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpur^videSale Deed executedon 25'^ March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. , No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhileholdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters,thoughthe land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has comein evidence thatthe acquiredlandswere being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thu^ it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing U.APP.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur marketprice of the land in questionwouldpay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^^ January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlighted by Apex Court in its decisionreported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvalueof the acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto theprice fetched by saleofplots in awelldevelopedlayoutin tke'nsi^hborhood LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal \, LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lAApp. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur \ Page22 of 29 orwhetheritbe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthe publicationof the preliminary'notificationunder Section ofthe Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevantdate of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasput andincreaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made avaUable in that regard Asmall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out accordingto its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such,for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land chargedby the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same,and transferringperpetual leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai CA««rf(Supra),acoordinateBenchof this Court in JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of UAnn' N°' connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA A M ^ connectedAppealsof VillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 7^ the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Detennined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural,lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is.whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in questionwhile taking into considerationthe earlier acquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villages for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedsenior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,still the pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt ^ progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyondthat itmay be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofa few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page24 of29 3^ escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%) per annum.In this viewof the matter,the cross-objectionsof the respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland bythe Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April,2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceasedto be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^'' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It istru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut that by itselfis notsufficientto LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page25 of29 presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. ,Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami. Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section 4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on other sale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthatthequalityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewiththe acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the mmimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which -generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what LA.App. No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur P3g6 26 of 29 3^ would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Siipra)as well as inSushil Kumar (Supra)andI find no reason to take a differentview than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)andSushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButI fmd thatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and ofRailway line passingthrough Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from ShivMurti sideto.DwarkaSub-City,PartI and PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpeisuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur r3ge 27 of 29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan V5. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶39Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no special featuresto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decisionin Sushil Kumar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the marketvalueof the acquiredlandsdeterminedbythe ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providinga higherbuildingpotentialityinthe acquiredlandsinquestion.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur vr • V, . the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined @ ^16,50,000/- per bigim for the Category'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per ^^forthe Category'B' lands in question. 1^"^'

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgmisnt reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid tenns with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount, if any, depositedby either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. January 06, 2012 pkb (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE /4'0 ' 11^ Pal-U.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No.111/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 > % RANBIRSHLARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentinappealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for -- Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.p. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOF MDIA&ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012(For correctionV This is.^an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof6"" January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave accepted-thenotice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 - .....A/' /• 9'^, r--- of the appHcation.Advancecopy of this applicationhas alreadybeen given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6^*^ January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'inparagraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb iUNIL GAUR) JUDGE LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

@ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP.293/2010 0/0 SMT VIDHYA DEVI & ANR Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: CORAM: ..... Appellant Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20,23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49,59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOl/LAC Mr.Bank.ey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR