Karan Singh & Ors 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. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb GAUR) JUDGE Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIRSHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Afiand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thalchur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed b}' UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA^ ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LACAJOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA LA.APP.412/2008& CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Obiections);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& connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhal LA.App. No. 294/2.010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwaian 1A.App. Nc. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur p^gg j LA.APP.771./2008& CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008- ^ CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& TAA (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP776/2008• ^^^•^^^•^^2/2008& CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections)' LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & ^.No.61^/2009 (Cross-Objectxons); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM No 931/2009 LA.APP^05/2008;LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008& CM.NoJ795/2009 (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.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-Obiection<?V ^LA.APP.90./2008;LA.APP.9I5/2008;LA^SSl Ta (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008- -.A.APP.974/2008& CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections)-LA APP 975/2008-LA.APR976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008;LA.APP.986Si' CM.No572^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.17340/2008 T LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections)- LA.APP.1032/2008& CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections)-LA APP 1046/2008 AAD ^ CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections)-LA APP 1050/2008' ^AAPP^^053'2008S CMNo 1766/fon^^^ CM^No.416/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1.054/2008& CMNotS?? LA-APP.1053/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& rr n nv . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CMNo 17259/2008rrrn..OkI t V ^ ? (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No619/2009 A LA.APP.1093/2Q08;A.APP.1094/2008; LAAPPIO95S CM No383^^(C™ss-Objectioiis);LA.APP.1108/2008 & rMNo3S2S9nnL? AV • LA.APP.1109,'2008;LA.APF.1110/2008& CM No 3831 2009 LA.APP.1111/2008;LA.APP.ll12/2008& CM.No3831/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1113/2008& CM No 3826/2009 (C ross-Objections);LA.APP.1115/2008;LA.APP.1116/2008-LA APP 11?1/9008 iiilail Uadd' /9mnf VillageBijwasan W.App.Nc. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 2 of 29., . % I (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.l193/2008; LA.APP.l194/2008; LA.APP.l195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP.l198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP.1223/2008;LA.APP1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross.01:)jections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008;"LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008;LA APP 1279/200^ LA.APP.1280/2008;LA.APP.1281/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA APP 74/2009 LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.l08/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA;APP.162/2009; LA.APP.197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.,APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP.144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP.199/2009; , LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009& CM.No970/2011 LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; lIIppSp LA.APP.227/2009;LA.APP.230/2009& CM.No.7206/200 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009- •LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009-LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009;LA.APP447/2009-LA.APP,459/2009-LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009' LA.APP.489/20.09; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP.45/2010-LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; LA.APP.1138/2008-' LA.APP.l177/2008;LA.APP.1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA. APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/I3417dated 13.12.2000 Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: Decemher OR. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 20J2 ' LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEVENDERKUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal -A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur versus Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-1,4,38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) UOI & ANR ..... 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.Setfi, Advocates for DDA. LAAPP. LAAPP. LAAPP. 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 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 405/2010 ,J^PP. 406/2010 LAAPP. 49/2010 LAAPP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LAAPP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA^PP. 362/2010 •APP. 407/2010 409/2010 ';^^^APP.438/2010/LA.APP.588/2010 723/2010 LA:]^PP772-4;^Tn.T) LA.APP. 725/2010 mum 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 75/2010& 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 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,'VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AN13 l.A.App.No. 1195/2C08&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App.No. 29,4/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan iAApp.No.'111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • 'pae4of29 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2017 LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAMANDORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solanlciand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor 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,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64,65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNIONOF 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 for DDA. 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., 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. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 6^2/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 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 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. 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. 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.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan 1-A.App.NO. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePrhanpur (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

06.01.2012

¶1Since-the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learnedcounsel for the partiespresentat the hearmg 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 Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-IP in Delhij commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13'^ December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertammg to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasan^nd Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstoodacquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-20D3; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@?13'82 lacs per acre for ••Block'A' (level.field-with top soil) and @^12.32lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired W.App. No. H95/200S&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur agriculturallands, appellantshad soughtreferenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct. 1894and the ReferenceCourtvideimpugned judgmenthad enhancedcompensation@f15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' and @T13.36lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhavebeendismissed, In theseappeals,furtherenhancementofcompensationsoughtby the appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at therateofRupees Fi%lacsperacre,whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhavesought compensationat the rateofRupeesThirtylacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in ExeciUive Engineer, KamatakaHomingBoard LandAc.,uisiaonOfficer, Gadagand Or,.,(2011)2see246;AnjaniMoluDessaivs. StateofGoaandAm.,

(2010)13 see710;SubhRamandOrs vs. StateofHaryanaandAm., ( 010) 1see 444, Sangunthala(Dead) through tSs. Vs. Special TehsUdar(LandAcquisition)&Ors.,(20l0)3SCe 661;RanvirSingh andAnr, vs. UnionofIndiaAIR 2005 Se 3467; ChindhaFakiraPatU

(D) throughLRs vs. The SpecialLandAcquisitionOfflccr,Jalgaon, 2011(2)SCALE321; JaiLat vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJIll-RamaNand(sincedeceased)throughLRs vs. UnionofIndia&Anr. 2002 (65) DRJ 1(DB); Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana£ Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State ofPunjab&Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. StateofMaharashtra.(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) throughLRs and Ors vs. Stateof Banana^ Anr, (2008)2SCC 568; W,P.(e)No. 4143/2003titledas Smt. InduKhorana vs. GramSatha&Ors. decidedon 26.03 2010. 7'sCc'7m" (20' see 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiandors vs. ExecutiveEngineer Gujamt and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175;RisalSingh&Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia&Anr.,2006(89)DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs.Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbkaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)andAnr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238-KapilMehra(Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia&Anr, 176(2011)PLT 361; W.P,(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority& Anr., decided on 24.04.2008;Om Prakash(dead)byLRsandOrsvs. UnionofIndia,(2004)10SCC627; Satpal& Ors ys. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

26.09,2011;LA. APP, No.59/2007titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;andBhuleRam vs. UnionofIndia,2010 (]70)DLT371. . 6-On the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguingcounselfor the appellants thatthe locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgediceepingin view the developmentin the areaoveraperiodof timeandthe samecannotbe limitedto the nearfuturealone.

¶7It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counselfor appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passestl,roughthe land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts on the easternsideofthe railwayline is theIGI Airport,NewDelhi pp. NO. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 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 Airportis located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanldlearnedcounselfor the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentofDwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siraswere also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslmdcpto highlightthatthe boundary 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 entirelandofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewoftheNotificationof24^^ October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.IC.Rout,learned counselfor the'appellantsthatthe aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Reddi & Ors. V5. Land AcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decisionin 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 developmentin 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 appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlight 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 illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, 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 CoiirtmAnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale 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/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandispatentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentofmarket value ofthe acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,simationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ITV.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page10 of29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO ratesofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DetemiinedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about th^ 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 accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe,ratesofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section5 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bhSupremeCourt in the recent ' case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin lAApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin 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 compensationupona certanland. f Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis much higherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockA and ^13,36,000in BlockB in violation of the law laid down by'the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State ofHaryana 2010(1) SCC 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 Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. The^masterplanand Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinent to mentionthat the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74'^amendment ofthe Constitutionof India, 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 municipalCounsellor was electedfrom there. No Panchayatelections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, RanvirSingh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a directeffecton the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan W.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur J auctionedsimilarlysituatedlandas commercialblocks a, the rate ofabout X2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland.

i) The valuationofthesubjectlandis even lowerthan the pre-detemmedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2 Jor similarly situated land. k) Does not tak into accountthepossibilityofchangeof he use ofthe landalthoughthe landwas acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase 11 It is Bharthalwas changedand these areas ceased to be "JodT^atT'' I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24.101994 although they clearly establish the commercial ^"^""Smthala v. Tahsildar l ^ '' thatthepurposefor ^h.ch land is acquired is a relevantfactormfe '^Ouired the fact tr Zud^J potentialityto be used J°>^b-uildingpurposesmimmediateor in nearfuture needs to be considered m) The presenceofa number of buildings on the lands TJild occupied by the - ' treatedas house sites. The lands ^ere acquiredfor purpose ofputting up r^iJZZ IZTsifeth"'*!- '""'"g'°""deredas house site, the adjoininglands have the potentialof beingputin betteru,eashousesitesin theZarf^mre"

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and oAers of LA, App No 347/2009.the factualdetailshave been providedwithaprayerthat the appellantsofth.s appeal be treatedat par with the eo-appellantsofthe otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplemerningthe aforesaidarguntentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,.t was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof ""-x. urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238;KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuctionRates ofthe area are relevantto detenninethe 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 correctmarket value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectmgjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtintheseappeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannotbe taken as relevantevidence for determinationof the market value unless and.until the same is properly connectedwith the land in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand otherfactorsnamely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the village^c. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Qrs vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SushilKumarvs. Union ofIndia, 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. U9S/2008&connertedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&• connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur /.J r y -o-and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge 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 coordinateBenchof this Courtin Sushil Kumar (supra)and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.SanjayPoddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice of the agriculturalland by the Governmentas on r' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per annum, 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 thatthere is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired 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 deservesto be broughtin line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the'decisionscited,whatemergesisthatthe truemarketvalue \ ofthe comparablelandis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto awilling O' LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAAop. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 15 of 29, seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value' thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryam & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) thesituationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or villagewhich had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherlandofimportanceor because ofitsexplosivepopulation;

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

(ni) possibilityofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto heput up on thatland;

(iv) 'absenceofstatutoryirripedimentsor the likefor using ' the acquiredlandforbuildingpurpose;

(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 surrounding' 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 buildingpurposes, to specify a few. "

¶18Thepotentialityoflandfor the putposeofdevelopmentas alsofor buildingpurposesdependsuponalargenumberoffactors.For the said purpose,tlie Court may not only have to bear in mind the purposefor lAApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan 1-A.App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePbchanpur which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent ev»ts to some extent. It has been so observedby the Apex Court in nnash(supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevantfactorsfor dete™i"ation 0compensationfor acquiredlands,it has beenheld by the Apex Court •n Sing,(supra)thatthe exemplarsofsmallpiecesofland relied upon by the appellantscouldnot beagroundto discardthem especially whenexemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwerenotavailable

¶19Aforesaiddictumstandsreiteratedby the Apex Court in Special Anr.s.M.K.HaMSaUe,,mi)lSCC 714^Thelegalpropositionwhichemergesfromthedecisionsreliedupon O^behalfof the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference rmlocation,situationor potentialityof the villages, which are . ..larlysituatedhaving similaradvantageavailableto them even as regar s future prospects, tlrere is no justificationfor reducing the ,egroundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlnds andthe acquiredland.

¶20It .s awell establishedpropositionof law that the burden of provingthe true marketvalue ofthe acquiredland is on the State who - acquired the agriculturalland for aparticularpuipose. But, it-is awlrd'd'^'"'t compensation arded is on the claimant.For this proposition,the decisionof the ^pexCourtmKira"Tan,on(Supra)canbe referredto withadvantage that theT "hT f-' of Torto 0 owar s evelopment charges was improper. The pertinent Observationsmade by the Apex Courtin An^aniMoiu Z>.J(Supra) deserveattention,whichare as under:- •^•App. »«. UV2010S "The 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 ofsimilarlandswhoseprices range in a,narrow bandwidth, the average thereofcan be taken, as representingthe 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 accountof under-valuation or otherpricedepressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note ofthe clinchingobservations pertainingto determinationof-fairmarketrate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactionsin respectof the land under acquisitionor in its absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility takenplace between a willingvendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreedbetween reasonableprudentpersons actingin the normalmarketconditionsare the real basis to _ ' determine the market value. "

¶23Prmciplesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC)(Supra),are as under:-Prirnarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors -situationof the land, nature ofdevelopmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. ) IV\.App. No. U95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBiiwasan W.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ Page 18of29 On the otherhand, in urban.orsemi-urbanareas, wherethe developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivity all around, the escalation in marketprice is at a much higher rate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalationsin prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreperyear, duringthe nineties.On the otherextreme, in remote rural areas where there, was no chance of 'any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated joryearsor rosemarginallyata nominalrateof1%or2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increasesin market value oflands in the rural arem. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat bestbe onlyaro^halfofit, thatis about5% to 7.5%perannum This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties,to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidence relatingto increase in prices. Where there are specialre^onsfor applyinga higherrate ofincrease,or any specific mdence relating to the actual increase in ThTsar^e ^oulddependupon ofdeterminingthe narketvalue byprovidingappropriateescalationover the provedmar^tvalueofnearbylands inpreviousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),wherethere no evidenceofany contemporaneoussaletransactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelandsin the neighbourhoodThe said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition iaTumlZ years.Beyond ifiZ «neighbouring land Whatmay be areliablestandardifthe gap is Zfya jew years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandard ^herethe gap is largerFor example,for determiningthe market,value ofa land acquired in 1992. adopting the annual increase method with reference to a safe or LaIp 1 AppealsofVillageBijwasan •App No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Kf T '-"-ypvalls.This is Because, over the course ofyears, the 'rate' of annual increase mav itself oj annual pricesorsudJZ '' ofstagnationin ofZrZ^^ ^'-"dard • .s CourtIS mmd&Iofthe dictumoftheApexCourtinHmyana tateInaustruUDevelopmentCorporation(HSWC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparafvesalesmethods.Whatwas saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (oupra) IS as under:-

¶25Undisputedly,mthese appeals sale exemplars in and around « land,of Village Bharthal,Village Bijwas.anof the period in questionare not availableand thesolitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied had purchasedthe agriculturalland in Village Pochanpurat aprice whichvariedfrom?52 lacsto?62 lacsperacre. •

¶26WhetheraforesaidSaleDeeds(Ex.PW-1/4to ExPWl/im u are basicallybetweenone ,et f • J^x.PW-l/lO)which K • ^dha SwamiSatsam eas respectofthecompactblocicoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand6 he ana thevillagesin questionisthemootquestionwhichisrequired ,,_idsale exempli,i.e., SaleLt Page20 of29 m (Ex.PW-l/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 dependentupon the 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 acquired lands 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 exemplarsbeen got examined, then it. could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser,;i.e., Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvideSale Deed executedon 25"" March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Unwn ofIndia, decidedon 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 discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe treated asrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has comein evidence thatthe acquiredlandswere beingused for agriculturalpurposetilltheir acquisition.Thui; it becomes evidentthat the. acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing W.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal W.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 purchaseis meant for specialconsiderationand 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 Samallcha(Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosing exorbitantprice 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, no"sy it is required to be considered as to whefner 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.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Qrs., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination ofthe market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tJ^e nsi^hborhood LA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal \ LA.App. No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page'22of29 or whetheritbe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to hefetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefe^tched 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 relevant date of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasput and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto he made available in that regard. A small 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 of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales of buildingplots 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 Chand(Supra),a coordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands is being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedtheDDAratesfor allotmentofdevelopedlandor the DDA'sPre-DeterminedRates fof alternateallotmentsfor fixingthe marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease methodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalueofthe landin questionwhiletalcingintoconsiderationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.SanjayPoddar, learnedseniorcounselfor the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per amium is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period interveningthe Nottf,cation for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-H,stillthepricefixedby the LandAcquisitionCollectoris morethanthe aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancementgranted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictumof 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 beyondthatit may be unsafe, even if it relates to aneighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthegap is ofonlyofafew years,maybecomeunsafe and um-eliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-1and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. NO. 119^008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePOchanpur escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandof the previousyears.

¶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 coordinatebench 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 ReferenceCourthas 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 view of thematter,the cross-objectionsof therespondentare 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 by the 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 •A be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^'' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is tnrethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut that byitselfis notsufficientto ITV.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur pgge25 of 29

¶5.J presume that the acquired lands had gained potentialityfor being —re,. developedlands.The evidenceled is lackingon the viti . aspectOfthere beingany developmentin and aroundtheaquired ;rT T asan,.Beasheavilyreliedupon bytheappellantsdisclosethatthesale ofthesatdlandswas foragriculturalpntpose.

¶37Rather, if emerges from the evidence on record that till the 'l89rae°a ^and AcquisitionAct, . acqutredlands were put to agriculturaluse..Had there been . ncreasemprioedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe qmred lands upon change of their use post the year 1994 then appellantscouldhavelaidtheirhandson othersale instancesin thearea "V. age poehanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Vdlage SamaMa (Ex.PW-,/n)without leading any evidence to estabhshthat^thequalityandpotentialityofthe saleexemplarsof..... . ^"^®«Wa(Ex.PW-l/n)arecomparableWiththe acquiredlands an so the contigui^of d.e acquired land with the sale instanceof age Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/lI) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant highercompensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale mstances. Therefore,in view of the afore-referreddictum of the ( IDQ (Supra),uniformrateofcompensationdeservesto be awarded o. the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in De h, wh,ch ^en.rally facto., in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap betweenwhat PP NO. 111/2010&connectedAppealsOfVillagePoehanpur A would be expectedto be the marketgrowth a«d what the market had actnauygrown,Government'smmimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe marketvalue ofthe acquired landsmJaiSingh(Supra)as well as inSushilK«ma.(Supra)andIfind no reasonto takeadifferentviewthanthe one whichhad beentakenby coordmate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jat SingH (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).

¶38This Court is ofthe consideredview that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasanhas ng tly rehed upon the Govemmem'sminimum price for agricultural an smDelhito fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsmquestion hndmgoftheReferenceCourtinmatterofVillageBharthaland Village ijwasan.ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situation ofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evdenceon record.ButIfindthattheaspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlandsbeingin closevicinityofthe IGI Ai^^ort,IndianOil and harat^PetroleumDepots»d ofRailwayline passingthroughVillage arthal and there bemg a100 meters vide road startingfrom NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarlcaSub-City.PartIand PartII. dividingthe acquiredlands mtwo portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityofthe acquiredlands has somehowmissedthe attentionofthe ReferenceCourt.In the consideredopinionofthis Court,on accountof aoresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlandsin question,certainly -sumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I WhatpersuadesthisCourtto grant10%increaseoverand abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Rtference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the Jo ISoT/ """"f "'""••I ... ... J settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the-acquired land being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquired land had a • buildingpotentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase inprice attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficult to provide a ^ definitevalue qua potential,and in view ofthe fact that exactnesscan 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 market value of the acquiredlands as there are no special featuresto treat the acquired lands differcntlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumai^(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover..and abovethe V ' market value of the acquired lands determinedby the Reference Court in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired la,ndsin question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpuratpar with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appeals of LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pgg0 28 of29 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16.50,000/-per^j^forthe Category'A' land and@?14.69,6Q0/-perb^forthe Catefc'B' lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensationawarded, stauitorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor theperiodwherethereis adelayin filingthe appeal, forwhichperiodofdelayno mtereston theenhancedcompensationshall be paid.Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The abovecaptionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the RegisUy to remit the compensationamount,ifany. depositedby eithersidewiththeRegistrar Generalofthis Court,to the concernedReferenceCourt.Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppeafsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (SUNILGAUR) JUDGE w & + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA. Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mi'.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder (jodana, 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 respondentin appealsfiledby 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 PSIDIA&ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak,Mr,Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, ^ Advocates for LACAJOI 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 O R D E R

12.01.2012 C.M.Appl.No. 752/2012(Forcorrection). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof6^^ January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Pagel «/• '•-•w W''% ^ V ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicaleiTor pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6^^ January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12,2012 pkb —"^^OTiLGAUB) JUDGE AApp.No. 1195/2008 Page 2

r * •% + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 438/2010 KARAN SINGH & ORS Tlirough: versus UOI & ANR Through: Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Smgh 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) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for .UOI/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 for DDA. 4, CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR