Champa Sharma v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb . IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT W DELHI (1' Pr 2I i±l9iL (GRID-A) LA.APP. 1195/2008: (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIIR. SHARMA . . ... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Arnit Maari, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, MrJitn Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and MsAnita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Ad''ocate Mr.N . S .Negi and Mr.H; S .Ratte1a, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B K.Roitray, Mr.M, Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepai Khos1a Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Meh!awat Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate, Mr.i.S.Dahiya, Advocate r.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.11.S.Rai.te1a, (Advocates fbi respondent in appeals filed b 1101) versus UNION OF INDIA & A.NR. Respondents Through: Mr. S anj ay Poddar, Senior Ad Patha.k, Mr.Mohitrao .iadhav 1'vls .KI.K aurn udi Ki. ran, Advoc Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenash Kuinar, Mr. S .K. S ethi, Mr.iPav Sharrn a. Advocate for DDA .1,A.APP.412/2003 & CM.No.4096/2008 (CrGss-Q1 1-,A.APp.453/2008 1,A.AP.1 1.688/2008 & CM.No.5 LA.APP.697/2008 & CM.No.433/2009 (Cros-öbje (,'M.No.5 10/2009 (Cross-Objectiofls)• LA.APP.7( rocate with lVfr. Sanjay nd Ms.Nav.!in Swain, ites for LAC/UOI w Soni, Mr.Nlukesh an Mathur, Mr.Kunai jections); LA.App,452/2008 90/20 10 (Cross-Objections): tions); LA.APP.701/2008 & 8/2008 1,A.AP1).77Q/700 LA.App. No. 111.15/2005 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

4.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I t.\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeak of Village Pochanpur Page 1 ci 29 I . . LA.APP.771 /2008 .& CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Qbjctions); LA.APp.772/2008• 1,A.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objetions): LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No,61 I /2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP77/2008; LA.APP776/2008 LA.AP1.777/2008 LA.App.782/20()8 & CM.No.91O/2OO9 (Cross-Objectjons) LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008 LA.APi.785/OIJ8 1,A.APP.798/2008 & CM No.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.AP.799/2p08 & CM.N.93 1/2009 (Cross-Objectjons)• LA.APP.805/2008• LA.APP. 806/2008; LA.APP. 813/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 14/4008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 18/2008; LA.APP.8 1 /2008; 1,A.APP.820/2008; LA.APp.829/2008• 1,A.APP.830/2008• LA.APP.832/2008• LA.APP.833/2008 LA.APP.844/2008 LA.ApP,845/2008 LA.App.873/008 & CM,No.779/20 11 (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.9592008; LA.APP.973/2008; I LA. APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APp.975/2008, LA.APP.976/2008; LA.App.978/2008 LA.APP.986/21008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Object ions)LA APP 993/2008 ;LA. APP. 1 O29/2O8& CM.No. 17340/2008 C.ross-Objections); LA.APP. 1031/2008 & - CM.No. I 735/2008 (Cross-Objections)' LA. APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No. 599/2009 (cross-Ohj ections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; LA.APP. 1 O47/2008;LA.App 1 048/2008& CMNo.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); I LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/20()9 (Cross-Objeotions); LA.APP. 1050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (CrossObjctions);LA App 1052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Obections);LA.App1OS41/2Oo8 & CM,No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 055/2008;LA. App 1057/2008 & CM.No.752/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 058/008& CM.No. 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No, I729/2O08(Cross-Objectjois). LA.APP. lO6O/2008;LA APP 1062/2008 & CM.Nd.546/2009 (Cross-0bjectjo1); LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.N9.623/2009. (Cross-Qbjectjos) LA.APP.1075/2008. LA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM.o.42/2O09(CrossOhjectolJs); LA.APP 1 084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Q 1bjetions). LA.APP. I 086/200g & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 08/2008& CM.No.61 9/2009 (Cross-Objectiolis); LAAPP. 1093/2008; A.APP 1094/2008: LA APP 1095/2008; LA.APP1 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (cross-Objections); LA.APP. 11 09/2q08; LA.APP. 1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App.1 11 /208; LA.App.1 112/2008 & CM.No 3831/2009 (Cros-Objectious); LA.APP. ill /208 & CM.No.3826/7()9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1115/2008; LA,APP 11 16/008; LA.APP. 1121/2008; LA.App.l 126/2008; LA.APP.1 129/2008 & - CM.No.55/2009 (Cross-Objecijoit; LA.App.1 130/2008; LA.APP.1 131/2008 & CM.No566/2009 (Cross.Objectjo•0s LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP. 1135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Qhjectjois); LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Obectons); LA.APP. 1140/2008; LAAPP 11 56/2008; LA.APP. 1157/2008; LA .APP. ii S8/20O8 & CM.No.7774! 2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1159/2008; LA.App1 161/2008' LA.APP. 1166/2008; LA.1Pp, 1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009.(crossObjectibns); LA.APP. 1168/2008; LA.APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP, 1171/2008; LA.App.1 172/2008: LA.APP, 1173/2008; LA.APP] 175/200; LA.APP1 178/2008; LA.APP.1 1-9/20O8 LA.APp,i 18 1/2008; .LA.App 11 82/2008 LA.App 11 83/2008& C.No.6933/2O O9 (Cross-Ohjectj3iis). L.A. APP. 1184/2008; LA..App. 11 85/2008; LA.A.PP. 11 86/0O8& CM.No.70 1 3/2009 p No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal : .A.Ac,1). No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I A.App. & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 2 of 29, . (Cross-Objections); LA.App.1 190/2008; LA.APP.1 ic LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; JIA.APP, 11 LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross..Cyjje( LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP, 12 LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP. 122: CM;No;695'7/2009(cross Objections) LA.APP. 1226/ CM.No.3 841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 124 LA;APP 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.App27 LA.APP 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP..i 28 LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP33/2009;•LA;APP3' LA.APp.42/2009 & CM.No.746/20 11 (Cross..Ob LA.APp73/2009 & CM;No.7103/2009 (Cross-Ob LA.APP79/2009; LA.App.95/2009 & CM.No.9 LA.APP 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.App.12: LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.Appi 3 LA.APp. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP,.14L LA;APP 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APPI 9( LA.App. 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP;i 9 LA;APP 202/2009 LA;APP.203/2009; LA;APP.208/2i (Cross-Objectiois); LA.APP.2 10/2009 & CM;No; 9 LA.APP.2 11/2009; LA.APP 220/2009 LA;App;222 LA .APP.224/2009; LA.APP 227/2009 LA.APp.3 0/2( (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.24 1/2009; LA.APp.245 LA.APP 249/2009 LA.APP 257/2009W LA;APp;295 LA.APP3 67/2009; LA;APP 459/2009 LA.APP;43 7/2009; LA.APP,447 LA.APP 466/2009 LA.APP.480, LA.APP 489/2009 LA.APP 490/7009 LA.App.49 1 49412009-L A.APP LA.AIPP.495/2009- LA.APP;'03 LA.APP 507"2009 LA;APP 508/2009 LA;APPAO91 LA.APP5 11/2009; LA;App.5 12/2009; LA.APPS1 3/ LA.APP 572/7009 LA.App.404/20 10; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APp45/ LA.APp. 13/2011; LA.APP 1177/2008; L.A.APP. 1138/2 LA.App1 201/2008; LA.App.23 I /2( [IJ 1/2008; LA.App.1 192/2008; 5/2008; LA.APP1 197/2008; tions); LA.APP.1200/2008. 0/2008; LA.APP12II/2008; /2008; LA.APP. I 225/2008& 1,A.App.1241/2008& /2008; LA.App.1252/2008-7/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; 3/2008; LA.APP1284/2008; 2009; LA;APP39/2009 ctions); LA.APP.59/2009 ections); LA.App.74/2009• 3/20 1 1 (Cross-Objections); /2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; /2009; LA.APP. 139/2069; 2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; 12009; LA.APP19I/2009; 12009; LA.APP 201/2009; 09 & CM.NO.7027/2009 J/201 I (Cross-Objectjoils); 2009; LA.APP 223/2009; 09 & CM;NO.7206/2009 2009; LA;APP 246/2 009; 2009; LAAPp.305/2009. 2009; LA;APp;458/7009; 2009; LA.App.48 1/2009;

LA.App.493/7009. 009; LA;APP 506/2009; W09; 1,A.APP.510/2009. 009; LA.APP 567/2009

LA.APP48/2O10 )08; LA.APP. II 76/2008; (Relating to Notification No. F. 10(3 0)/96/L& B/A1 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitio A 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002. Village Bharthal,:De (GRTD—B) 13417 dated 13.12.2000 t, 1894 & Award No. hi) eceinbe,• 08, 2011 jgjiaty06, 2012 LA.App. 294/2010 (VILLAGE... BIJWASAN)

i)IVENj)ER KUMAR Through: /'App No. 1 15/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I A.App. No. 29.4/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L..App. No. J :1,2010 & connected Appeals Of Village Pochanpur Mr;R.S.Toniar, Mr Appellant irendra Singh 'age 3 of 29 I . [I Advocates Mr.•S.K.Solanki md Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B .K Routra) Advocates for appellant (in R-214, 38, 4 1-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Podd1r, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumr Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UO1ILAC Mr.S.K.Solariki 1nd Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals I filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Sinh, Advocate in R.-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey B --,Iiar Sharma., Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. I LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 19/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010! LA.APP. 5 6/2 010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.AP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.AFP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 [A APP 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 84/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 2189, 12010 LA.APP. 294/2() 10 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP:345/201O LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 38/2010 L.A.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.AP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.AP1. 7160/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/20 10 LA.APP. 36.3/2010 L.A.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 4 107/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 58/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 Li-\.APP. 723/2010 LA.A.PP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 71/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828112010 L.A.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 34/20 10 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 9/2010 & LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objectins) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& EL/13417 dated 13.12.200() issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003: Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND No. :1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LAApp. No. 294/2010 & connected ApPeals of Village Bijwasan . '.Apj. No.] 11/2,010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanour . _— .:T___ • ., .l /1 ;( V (GRID-C) December

don. January 06, 2012 LA.AP.P. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUF iO SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. .... Appellants Through: Mr.B .D. S1arma, Mr. S .K. Solanki and Mr. S .K.Rout, .Adyocates for appellant (in R-16, 20,23 to 2, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40,44 to49, 5.9,63tb71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, 4dvocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, ~ 4, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadavi Advocate for appellant. inR-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR i.... Respondents Through: . Mr.Sanjay Poddar Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay KurharPathak, Mr.Mohjtrao Jadhav, and Ms.Nv1jn Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.B ankey B ihari Sharma, Mr. Kurial Sharrna and Mr. Srner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. . LA.APP. 111/2010 LA,APp. 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP, 254/2010 LA.APP. 292/2010 LA.APP. 307/2010 LA.APP. 395/2010 LA.APP. 420/2010. LA .APP. 466/2010 LA.APP, 637./2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010 LA.App, 91 9/2010 LA.APp. 65,'201 1 LA.App, 120/2011 LA.APp. 476/201 1 LA.APp. 523/20 1 L LA.APp. 536/2011 LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP, 248/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 317/2010 LA.APP. 396/2010 LA.APP. 432/2010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APp. 639/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LA.APP. 1052/2010 LA.APp. 116/2011 L.AAPp. 121/2011 LA.App. 485/2011 LA.APp, 525/2011 LA.APP. 554/2011 LA:App. 15/2010 LA.APf. 209/2010 LA.AP1. 249/2010 LA.APP. 251/2010 LA..App. 395/2010 LA.APP. 32/2010 LA.APP. 37/2010 LA.Ap}:. .43/2OlO LA.AP1, 57/201 0 LA.APP. 640,2010. LA.APP. 741/2010 LA.App. 74/2010 .L.AJPP:. 611/2011 LA.APp. 1 17/20i I LA.APp, 129/201 I LA.App, 5211/2011 LA.APP 526/2011. J.A,APP 591/201 I LA.APP, 156/2010 LA.APP. 215/2010 LA..APP.250/2C)1O LA.APP. 270/2010 q .APP. 306/2.010 APP. 393/2010 LA.APP. 412/2010 L.A.APP. 434/2010. LA.APP. 635/2010 LA.APp, 657/20 10 LA.APP, 758/2010 LA.APP. 918/2010 LA.APP. 64/2011 LA.APP. 119/2011 LA.APP. 429/2011 LA.APP. 522/2011 LA.APP. 535/2011 Lr.ipp, No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal Li\.Ap1,. No. 294/20:Lo & Connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.I\.App, No. 11.l2010 & connected Appea:, ol Village Pochar,pur I' I ( (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96, -

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Vi. CORAM: .HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR . B/LA/13417 dated cquisition Act, 1894 & ge Pochanpur, Delhi) ORDER

06.01.2012 Since, the grounds on which enhancementof 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 bunáh of appeals pertaining to Nolzflcation No.F. 10(3096-L& B/LA11341 7 atc1 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Fh rthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this colñrnon order. Acquisition process for planned deveioprnnt of 'Dwarka Phase-ii' in Delhi, commenced with the issuanc f Notfication of 13t11 December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisiion I ct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land I ii i one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur. . Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents 'vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/O022003and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation 1.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field With top soil), and @ 7, 112.32 lacs per acre for Block '13' (without top soil). [)issatisfled with the assessment of mrkt àlue of their acquired LA.App, No. 1195/2008 &. connected Appeals of Village Rharthal i'..App. No. 294/2010 & cOnnected Appeals of Village Bijwasan .A.App, No. I 11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur under Section 18 of Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ T15.DO lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A and @ Z13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal nd Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur hav been disiñissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancementfof 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 lcs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decision; in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acqutsiton Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 SCC 246; AnjaniMoluDessaii v. State of Goa andAnr.,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Sub/i Rain and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunth ala (Dea4) Through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 S CC 661; Ran vir Sing/i and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 346+; Ghindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquiition Officer, Jaiguon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of Inclia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Raina Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. fJnion of India & Anr., • 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. S&zt of Haiyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; A vinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State bf Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 171; Atina Sing/i (Dead1) through ;LJs and Ors vs. State of Ilarvana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W;P.) No. 414312003 titled as Sint. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land'Acquisition Officer & Anr vs,, MJX. .Rafiq Saheb, (2011.) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhaj Devjibhai and: ois is. Executive Engineer, A.po No. 1195 / 2008 & connected AppeaN of Viflage Bharthal i\.App. No. 29ii/2O1O & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasar% /\.App. No, 111120.10 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . I agricultural lands, appellants had sought refi the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the 'Refe Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; B a State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) ii sec 175 i Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) .DRJ 52ND); La! Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009). 15 SCC 769; Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Ramesh Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Vaiiiyammal and, (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC Allah abäd Development Authority, (2004) .Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharas, i .Jivanbhai Patel and vs. Special Tehslldar 937; Kiran Tandon vs. .0 SCC 745; Mahesh i, AIR 2009 sc 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors, Vs. nion of india & Anr, 176(201 1) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 Ilitled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., deciqied on 24.04.2008; Oni Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of I Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (199/) No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. (liii

2.6.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as India, decided on 07.06.2011; and .Bhule RaM

(170)DLT 371.

¶6On the strength of the. aforesaid decii( • was ured by Mr.BS.Maàii, learned arguing that the location and situation of the acquired first understood in order to appreciate its, adjudged keeping in view the development in ia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; i sec 423; LA. APP. r'z of India, decided on

ed Ram i's. Union of Union of India, 2010 at the very outset, it sel for the appellants cultural land has to be which must be area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar, consel for appellants that I)elhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage railway 1in of 'Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, di'iding it into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IGI Airport, New Delhi A/pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal .A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Biiwasan A//pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

. and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat 'Pe leurn and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Mu towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-Il agajn divides the ag-icultura1 land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Arport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Huses are located on th e ! land of Villages Bharthal j Bijwasan and Sarnakha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankj learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first aquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and agai ~ '~he in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter. in year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal nd Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for developrnenti of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Baran oli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of P1a4II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the a/cs sizras/rnap to hihlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpu.r and Villaae Dhool Siras are contiguous. It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference court has failed to appreciate the poteniality of the acquired land in the light f its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be aricultaral in spite of Notification of 16" October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agriultural to residential/ comrnercjal/jndustriaf etc. and infact the entire lkncl of Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification flf 24th October, 1994. It was argued with much vehemence.i b Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid to otifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by felying upon P. Rwna

4.Apo. No. 1195/2008 & CoflnectodAppeajs of Village Bharthal LA.Ap. No. 29/2010 & corloected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur n .

J--5-K Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, P . & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 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 Ove 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 t any use, it would not mean that there is nO building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharrna, lamed counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village IPochanpur to highlight S that the sale price reflected therein varied from2 lacs to Z62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sa1e exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Rerence Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exeiplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dssai vs. State of Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale xernplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to Z57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relieI ipon by the appellaits are the comparable sale instances, therefore 're iance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rats for detenining the market value of the acquired land is patently errônous.

¶11Assessment of market value of the acquire.1 land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appeilant.s on the basis of the L& 1)0 rates fixed by the Government and also on. the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the lcation, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 2.94 1 2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Pge 10 @129 I S sought on the strength of sale exemplars of illage Pochanpur and \/j Ilage Samal.kha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or On t basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant - Impul India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the urn d judgment on the following grounds:- "Ignores the acknowledgement o'z he part of the respondent about the Award No. 6q002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Refrrred to in cross-exalninat ion of appellant dated

7.7.2007) Does not account for the fact tha t/e Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adverseli' affected the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years before the Not/lcation under Section 5 of the Land Acquisltion Act 1894 was issued. Valuing the land on the basis of he letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the Government of\Tational Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions (?f the Hon 'bie Sujreme Court iii Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(3) 5CC 661. ci) Ignores the evidence and other factos which as per established law has to be considered befire ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in valu. ojr the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court wheea as per the law established by the IJn 'ble Supreme Coirt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil ve usl Special Lad Acqui.ition OffIcer, Civil Apeal No.542f5 of 2007. The I-Ion 'bie Supreme Court has spec ticillj held that Sale Deed showing higher rate should no b disregarded in LJ\.App. No. 1.195/2008 & coflnected Appeals of Vifiage Oharthal I (i\.Aop. No. 294/2010 & connected ippeels of Village llijwasari J.App No.1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page I 1 of 29 S > 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 he highest of the exemplars and not, by averagingof different types of sales transactions should be, considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. D Relied upon judgment dated 3J3.2008 in LAC No.•.97A/2 006 to decide the market vclue of the subject land while ignoring the material whic 1i indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and Z13,36,000 in Bock B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon 'b4e Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment refused to return an actual finding n the issue No.] framed on 27.2 2007 g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Noqflcation of the Municipal corpor1tion of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras. aizd B ha rtha 1 was changed and these areas ceased to Q agricultural and came now under the urban boundarjs of Delhi State. The masterplan and IVótfIcations of Government for land use change show that in futzre land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinen• tc mention that the appellant lead evidence in respect of th 74 amendment qf the Constitution of India, w. e.f 1.6. .1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal :Corpration Act was amended and the area where the ithi.à is situated, was deemed a niuniczpal area and the iiiunkczpal Counsellor was elected from there. No PancJ'a4t elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supmemne Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr Union of India and refused to consider the fact that the development in the area has a direct effect on the pribe that a willing purchaser would pay for the subjeèt land, 0 Ignored the .fact that Respondent Ito. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l./\.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan [.A.App, No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur auctioned szmilarly situated land s omniecial blocks at the rate of about Z2.6 lakh and cncluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped lard. D The valuation of the subject land is evn lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by i?espondent No. 2 Jr similarly situated land. k Does not take into account the possibii of change of the us of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Dwarka fhase Ii, it is reiterated that the land use of Vildge JDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these ares ceased to be agricultural and came now under: the ifrban boundaries of Delhi State 1) gnored Notifications dated 16. 10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish I tie commercial potentiality of the said land, in Sanguntljzala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 5CC 661 it was held thai the purpose/or which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acuird the fact whether the land has got building potn 1iality to be used for building purposes in immediate or in near jiture needs to be considered

ii) The presence of a number of builcijn1-1 on the lands acquired and the said land being. ocupied by the buildings are to be treated as house stes. The lands were acquired/or purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a po;tion of the landis beink considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in ther near fuíture"

¶13In the brief Synopsis by Ved Pal and bthrs of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have been provided with a prayer that the appellants of this. appeal be treatedat par with h co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. 1 . Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advaced on behalf of the appellants it was urged by Mr.Anand Yda\', Advocate that the effect of LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A App. ro. 11112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur H urbanization of the lands in the Villages in cjuetion, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattaray Thirthkar i's. I State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Me/i ra (Major General) & Ors. Vc. Union of India & Anr, 176(201 ,1) pLT 361 and that Pre-i Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates pf the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lards and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are éornprable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference court td assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhaicei1nent of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Rspondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senio Counsel urged that thouH as per Section 51 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be takdn as relevant'eyjdenc e for determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and elementof special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, ature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also equired to he considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respndnts disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illgally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upci1 te decisions in Jai La! i's. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRI 227, Satjal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 5CC 423; La! ('hand vs. Uiiioi of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 scc 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titlH as Sushi! Jiurnar vs. Union of India, decided on 26.09.20 ii, it was irged that sharp increase in price in a sh6rt period cannot be taken to be reaiistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by produciig in evidence the seller LA./\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal i.A.App. No. 2.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l/\.App. No. 11112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur • • > and the purchaser as no prudent person hag knowledge of the usua] prevalent trend in the market would pay SUCh; a ligher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsan', Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thu, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be couitenanced in knew of the decision of Apex Court in La! Ghand (supra) which has been followed by a • coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kuma (supra) and Raj Singh (supra). So far as potentiality of the land is conerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the RespQndents/cross-. objectors that the same has already been factord into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural ..iand by the Government as on 1st April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as ii Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been grnted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancernent fr?m the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collectr and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the Reference Court while taking into considerätiön t1 he appreciation @t 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereb' allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon ciose perusal of the impugned ju4gment, the evidence on record and thedecisjons cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid by wifling purchaser to a willing LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA./\op, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No, 211/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 15 of 29. I seller and the best evidence is the compar le sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value o the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the rnarkt value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass 's. State of Haryana & Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE 41 in these words: - i2 the situation of the acquired lan' vs-a-vis the city or the town or village which had ben growing in size because of its commercial industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population,- '

(ii) the suitability of the acquired 1th2d(or putting up the buildings, be they residentizl, commercIal or industrial, as the case mai be; NO possibility of obtaining watei and 4ectric supply for • occupants of buildings to be put upn that land,

(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like/or using the acquired land for buildingpurpose; existence, of highways, public. Hads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the cquired land,- benefits or advantages of educatina/ ins titütions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land wi2ich may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land,- and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for bui$dirg purposes, to specifvafew"

1.8. The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purpoes depends upon a large nuiñbbr Of fctors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear7 in mind the purpose for li\.App. No. 1195/2009 & connected Appes of Village Bharthal .A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App No. 121/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur , Paec 16 of 29 . E H > which the lands were sought to be acquired b also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observe by the Apex Court in A3'inash (supra) While reiterating the relviht kactors for determinatoj of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Alma Sing/i (supra) that the exemplars oi small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were iiot available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by th Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K RaJq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the COlTipensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquifed land. It is a. well established proposition of iw that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired Japd is on the State who has aèquired the agricultural land for a paniclar purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this propositioi, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be rëfered to with advantage. Apex Court in Valliammai (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close Ticinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., iad held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was imroper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoiu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- A.Ipp l'io. ] 195/2008 & Connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan lAApp. No. i.1l12010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 17 0129 • H "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lnds, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a boni fide transaction, will be considered. Where however: ther are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a rarrow bandwidth; the average thereof can be taken, as I representing the market price. But where the values dlsclsed in respect of two sales are markedly dfftrent, it caIssimilar only lead to an inference that they are with reference to lands r that the lower value sale is on account f under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Cosekjuently averaging cannot be resorted to."

It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching obsenTations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made S by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Pitii (Supra), vhich are as follows:- "It is well settled that genuine and bona Jlde sale transactions in respect of the land un4er, acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transact/on' proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands .pssessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expeted to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions ar,e the real basis to determine the market value." Principles to determine the market value lof the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Naturqi Gas Corporation Ltd.

(ONGG) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices li depends on fur factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land fr. development in the area, and the demand for land.ih the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect offi dvelopment in the vicinity; increase in prices would be 'lom stecidv and gradual, without any sudden spurts órjums. .A.App. No. J 395/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I..A./'pp. No. ii 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur .1 I On the other hand, in urban or semi-urb development is faster, where the deinthi and where there is construction activi escalation in market price is at q mu compared to rural areas. In some jocke to rapid development and high demc escalations in prices have touched Ove, more per year, during the nineties. Oi th remote rural areas •where there was development and hardly any buyers, th for years or rose marginally at a nomina per annum. There is thus a signfic increases in market value of lands in areas and increases in market value of areas. Therefore if the increase in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% t the corresponding increases in rural are only around half of it, that is about 5 01,01 t This rule of thumb refers to the gen nineties, to be adopted in the absence of evidence relating to increase in prices. special reasons for applying a higher r any specfic evidence relating to th prices, then the increase to be appliec ii the same. .1 z areas, where the Ifor land is high all around, the i higher rate, as in big cities, due d for land, the 30% to 50% or 'other extreme, in o chance of any prices stagnated rate of]% or 2% mt difference in urban/semi-urban rands in the rural market value in 15% per annum, s would at best be

7.5% per annupi. 'ral trend in the clear and specflc Where there are te of increase, or ctual increase in uld depend upon l\Torinally, recourse is taken to the mode f determining the market value by providing appropriat ecalation over the proved market value of nearby lands n jrevious years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisiion), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneu; scle transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the n1ighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-smle transactions/acquisitions precedes th sthject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto foir to Jive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates o a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard the gap is only a frw years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. Fo example, for determining the market.. value of a land acquired in 1992. adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or .A.Aop. No. 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IAApp No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 19 of29 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have mai'iy pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, lze 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic chan-e apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying perod 0/stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase" * .01

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the ipex Court in Harpana State Industrial Development Gorporation (I1S1Dq (Supra), regarding computation of compensation, for the •acquird lands by adopting comparative sales methods.. What was said by th Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When different categories of lands (or Iards with dlfferent situational advantages) are acquired or the same purpose, say for forming of a residential layot, courts have sometimes felt that determination oj tleir value with reference to previous status or situatioi sl1ould be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation huld be awarded for all lands acquired under the same not ticatin."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale, exeriplars in and around acquired land of Village BharthaL Village' Bij\asan of the period in question are not available and the solitaiy sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochaii'pui, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radho Sami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village [Pochanpur at a price which varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. • 26. Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-i/lO) which are basically between one set of co-owners ànçl iadha 'S'vami Sai'sang, Beas in respect of the compact block of land measJring 18 Bighas and 6 I3iswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the cect market value of the land in the villages in qestion is the moot queskion which is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exenpars, i.e., Sale Deeds • LA.App. No 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal U.i\pp. No, 294/20'10 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I A.Ap, No. ii 1/7010 & connectedAppeals of Village Pochaopur (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate thatits pice varies from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the lentire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PWl/l0) did not command the same market price. It was dpendent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exeniplrs with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exempars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquied lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agric Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these been got examined by the appellants. Had the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, t elicited from him as to why he had agreedto p i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 3 .Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamuur vide SleDeed executed on 25111 March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA.Ap.No 266/2008 titled as Jai Sing/i vs. Union of India, decided on :23 .8.0l I and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Sing/i vs. Union f India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the :a1 exemplar of Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding thatthe Jme cannot be treated as representati\ie price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land lse of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, bt ithas come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for ari:cuflura1 purpose till their acquisition. Thu, it becomes evident that the acuired lands were not cIveIoped lands. No prudent person having knovledge of prevailing LA.App. No. .195/2008 & Connected Appeals of Viliage Bharthal j\App No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan tA.App. No. ui/lOW & Connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 210129 I these lands. The special fancy of the lands in Village -1/10) has not been icu.itural land has not urchaser/vendee of the en it could have been such a high price for I n market price of the land in question would py and until such purchase is meant for special coi considered opinion of this Court the sale ee (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been ri a high price unless ideration and so, in the plars, i.e., Sale Deeds discarded by the Reference Court. So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of 27th January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-l/l 1) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and b ause vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the 1ard at the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, )y-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view ther of, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price .foi the acquired lands in question. Left with no sale exemplars disclosing.elistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is requitedto be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-I)eterrnined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to he adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question. Parameters governing fixation of marketalue of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reporte4 as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer HydeMbad Urban Development Authority Ilyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 34 are as under:- '12. however, in either of the said casks iJvhether it be the determination of the market value of the acjuired land with building potentiality with reference to the jprice fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed layout in tT.e neighborhood I A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur I or whether it be the determination of the narket value of the acquired land with building potentia/ity with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neigh borooc1, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out -what will be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales of plots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with ifeFence to the price which the plots could have fetched if sold bn the date of the publication of the preliminary not/Icaticn under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidenc ofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands b4'omes available, then what could be done is to find out thê market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and incease its value by a small percentage having regard t tJ1e degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the bais of evidence to be made available in that regard. A si1nall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 115th of the market value of the land found out according, to its actual user since resort to the method of giving incrased value for such huilding potentiality arises only wlen there is no evidence of sales f building plots in t1e fleighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there wds no immediate demanc as such, for building plots even 1fformed in the acquired land."

¶31In view of the difficulties in adoptioii o rte of land charged by the I)DA after acquiring the agricultural lands, ee1opng the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lal (hand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable : to, r( rates/Pre_Determifled Rates in determining the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Follov'jn hand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court and Sushi! Kumar (Supra) has excluded tije dcveloped lands as being not relevant for assessin LA.App, No. 1195/2008 & conected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 113/7010 & connected 1ppeaIs of Village Pochanpur y upon the allotment value of the the dictum of La! 1 Jai Singh (Supra) .DA rates qua the the market value of I , S the undeveloped acquired lands.. Thus, I'find has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for alhitr the DDA's Pre-Determjned Rates for alternate market value of the acquired agricultural lands i

¶32Now what is required to be seen is the Reference Court t of developed land or Ilotments for fixing the question. er progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other vil1ges for development of Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought 'to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-bjector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 10%per urn is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the nod intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka 1 I and the instant Notification 'for development of Dwarka Phase-I the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the and therefore, the enhancement granted biz t unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good ii still the price fixed by aid escalated price Reference Court is view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), cautinig the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 •yers and beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if thegap is of only of a fe.w ye4rs, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. n the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarla Phase4 and Dwarka Phase-IT is of sixteen years and therefore, it wouki be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by roviding appropriate Lfl.App. No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . I El S escalation over the market value of the nearbi of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senic counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that ith Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, whi is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kunar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 1 o% per annum. After havir:.g perused the decision in I Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 1 0% increae on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and aove the market value determined by the Reference Court has been. grnted and so, by relying upon Sushi! Kurnar (Supra) escalation graned by the Reference Court 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10°/pe annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in De.lhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the rnrket value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12 0%, per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of thJ minimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. 1st Ari1, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or S not. Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the : acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural land by virtue of Notificai.jor of 24 October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Notification othe year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed but that by Itself is not sufficient to l.A.App. No.

1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Annok •1105c OIJWdScJIJ IA.App. No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur presume that the acquired lands had game considered as developed lands. The evidence 1 aspect of there being any development in and in question. Not only this, even the sale ce Satsang, Beas heavily, relied upon by the appll of the said lands was for agricultural purpose!.,

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidenhe issuance of Notification under Section 4 of th potentiality for being / I is lacking on the vital the acquired lands jlars of Radha Swami ts disclose that the sale record that till the Land Acquisition Act, I 1894, the. acquired lands were put to agricültural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use pot the year 1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other sle instances in the area in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution a of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) without k establish that.the quality and potentiality of the Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur an Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-l/i 1) are comparaNe and so the contiguity of the acquired land i'wi Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/1 1) cannot be t ground to grant higher compensation while reh sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afi Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial De (HSIDC) (Supra), uniform rate of compensaticn for the lands acquired under the same Notificat minimum price fixed by the Government for ti I)elhi, which generally factors in the rise of potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there i IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur the sale of the land another sale instance admg any evidence to ile exemplars of Radha I the sale exemplar of with the acquired lands h the sale instance of eated to be sufficient g upon the aforesaid ferred dictum of the opJnent Corporation . serves to be awarded )n in the light of the agricultural land in price due to higher a gap between what / I S ii would be expected to be the market growtb actually grown, Government's minimum agrici to be reasonable basis for assessing the nar lands in Jai Sing/i (Supra) as well as in Sushul no reason to take a different view than the ohe coordinate Bench of this Court in the afo (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra). what the market had tural price has been he]d t value of the acquired uinar (Supra) and I find vhich had been taken by iid cases of Jai Sing/i

¶38This Court is of the considered view the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal 'ani Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimui-i price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemlas is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect 6f higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil and 13harat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line jassing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide ro.d starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I nd Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there beii vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow mi Reference Court. In the considered opinion of ti aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lLn assume higher building potentiality being in viöij What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase value of the acquired lands as assessed by 'ki account of the higher building potentiality in th I.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Rharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bijwasan L.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connect(d Appeals of Village Pochanpur a Farm Houses in the ed the attention of the s Court, on account of s in question, certainly Lty of Dwarka Phase-I. ver and above market Reference Court on acquired lands is the S settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Nausherwan K/ian vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC "When once a conclusion is reached tk possibility of the acquired land being us buildings in the immediate or near fut!re would be sufficient to hold that the 6cq building potentiality and proceed to det value taking into account the increase in to such building potentiality." CrI Apext Court in Mirza / 38, in these words: it there was the dfor putting up such conclusion ired land had a mine its market rice attributable

¶39Considering the fact that it would be yerb' 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 air compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which peisuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the dovernrnent's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing t ie fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special featuTs to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pchanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appe1lants. Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), I am inclined to grant lO% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determinedby the Reference Court in these matters on account of the aforesaiLd locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the ired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly all to the extent of 1 ('0/ - i uyo .increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Villagq Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Vi1lage Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Biwasan, the appeals of L.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur the annellants of Villaae Pnrhnnur lci-cill A f t1-. LL1_f CL11UVVU (A.) U1U LAL11L indicated above. Thus, the market value ofth acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined @ 116 1 0,000/- perbigh'for.the c-- Category A' land and @ 14,69,600/- per for the Category 'B' lands in question. 1\ On the aforesaid enhancement in the cOmpensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgrnert reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2901

(93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a dlay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the erihahced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. The above captioned appeals and cross-o jections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to 'the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accord iligly prepared. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE January 06, 2012 0 pkb q L.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal [J\.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Arnit Ma, I\4s.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Ve Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advoc.te. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder GodanaA Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S'R Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routr Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.SR respondent in appeals filed b Mr.Sucthanshu Tomar, Adv Mr.R.S.Tornar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.KSo Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Ac Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohjt Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kau Advocates for LAC/[JOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Set Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, IV Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates CORAM: HON 1I3LE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR c ;4 NEW DELHI Appellant i[VIr.Jaj Prakash, a, Mr.Jitin /Ocate tela, Advocate i, Advocates. tela, (Advocates for UOI) ate for i and Respondents voca.te with ao Jadhav and nudi iKjran, Ms. Amita Singh, .Kunal Sharma and For DDA. QRDE R

12.01.2012 C. AIIflk..NP. 7S2/ 2O12 (Forcorrectjon This is an application for seeking typogrphica1 correction in Order of 6th January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA4pp.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 ) of the application. Advance copy of this ap1ic tion has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6th January, 2012 is that in pargraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation asessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordinly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'pr bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. In view of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. (. UNJIL GAUR) JANUARY 12,2012 JTJDGE pkb V. 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. 306/2010 CT-TAMPA SHARMA Appellant Through: 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. Kurnar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/201 1) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-' 22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents• Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocatewith Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr. Somer K. Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JIJSTICE SUNIL GAUR