Union of India v. Raghubir Singh & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & A nr.'. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb «L 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 Al^ NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November IS, 2011 Frorioiincecl on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBJR SHAmA Appellant rhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA''erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.A]iand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, AdA ocate. Mr.Raghnvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr;S,K.Roul and Mr.B.K,R.outray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mi-.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav. Mr.l3eepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.l3hananjay MehlaAvat,Advocates Mr.H.S.RaLiiela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandcep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atui Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rai.ilela,(Advocates lui-respondent in app;ials filed by UOI) versus UNION 01'lNj3IA& ANR. Respondents Ihrougli; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdA'ocatewith iVlr.Sanjii) Pathak, IVlr.lVJoh.itraoJadhcis'and M.s.Navlin owain, Ms-.K.Kaumudi•Kiran, Advocatesfor LAC/001 Mr.Ajay Vern?a,Ms.Becnashaw Sorn. Mr.Mukcsh Kumar,Mr S.K.Sethi,Mr.Pav.'anMathiir, IVlr.Kunal Sharma, Advocaie Ibi; DDA I.A.APP.412/2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections) I' AAPP LA.APP.4«/2008;LA.AP!\688/2()08^ C^4.No.5990/20]0 (Cross-Obieclions); i.A.A]'J'.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP,70l'/20G8& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections): I..\.APP.768/'2008; !.A.A.PP.77()/2()08:, L.'\.A;,-'p.No. & connccledAppoiilsofVilhiRO Bharijiyl ;A.AII'P. No. /S'i/'MnO& coniKT'edApp(;jlso' Villaj^C:PiiiivaSiUi 1A.App. 1V". i.1.i./:H):10& connr-andAppealsofViilac.cl"-ochanpiii- ./"I LA.APP.771/2008& CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008;[\ LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA APP 783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 &• CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA,APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008& CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009' (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; lA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011' (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008 & CM:No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections);, LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/'2008 & CM.No.572,/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.17340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; l.,A.APP. 1047/2008;LA.APP.l 048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 ,& CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0bjections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); L.A.APP.1075/2008^; LA.APP.1081/2008,& •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections);• LA.APP.1084/2008&' CM.No.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1108/2008 & CxM.No:3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM;No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 113/20()8 & CM:No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; ' LA.APP.l 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); ;• • LA.APIM 130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM,No;566/2009 (Cross-Objectiona); LA.APP.l133/2008;"LA.APP.l135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objeclions); LA.APP.l137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008.(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l140/2008;' LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP. 1157./2008; LA.APP. 1158/2008 & CM.No.7774.'2009 - . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008;. LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.l 168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.1171/2008;LA.APP.11"72/2008;LA.APP.1173/2008; L.A.APP.11 75/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.l 17.9/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933.''2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.APP. 1186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009

1.A.App. No. .'119.S/'?.008St conn.GcledAppeal.sof VillageBharthal I.A App, No. Z91/Z0.10& connectedAppealsofVillageBljwa,san I.A./\pp.No. :i.l.l/.WiOa connnclGclAppeal.sofVillagGPochanDur' ' ^ Page?,of29 / (Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.]193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.1195/2008;LA.APP.II97/2008 LA.APP.1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008 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.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.N6.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008;LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP."l276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.1279/2008 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.7]03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.i35/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009;

1.A.APP.211/2009;

1..A.APP.224./2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; ].,A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; l.A.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP:203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CCross-Objcctions); LA.APP.210/2009 & tM.No.970/20] LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/20Q9; LA.yVPP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245,/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010;. LA.APP, 13,/20]1; LA.APP. 138/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 I,A,APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; i.A.APP.1138/2008; L/\.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM,No. 7027/2 009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.223/2009; CM.No. 7206/2 009 LA.APP.246/2009; LA. APP.3 05/2009; LA. APP.45 8/2009; 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; (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002,VillageBliarthal'Delhi)- (GRID-B) • . Reserved on: December OS. 201! Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). • , , , DEVBNDERKUMAR ' Appellant •. Ihrough: .Mr.R.S.'fomar, Mr.VirendraSingh LA.App. No 119:;/Z008& coiinectcd Appealsof Village Bharlhal IA.App, No. 294/2010& conneclHdAppcialsofVillage Bijwasan I.A.App No. ].U/7.010& connectedAppeal.?ofVillagePochanpur Pago 3 of 29 [M Advocates Mr.S.K;SoIanki aind Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.BiC. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR lA.APP. LA. AFP. L.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. !:,A.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,;and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for LIOI/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 Sharina and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. 11/2010 53/2010 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288,/2010 296/2010 347/2010 -351./2010 LA.APP 356/2010 "742/20^ LA.APP: 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010-C.M.No. 964/2011 (C LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.y\PP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55,'2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA,APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 ' LA.APP. 349/2010 L^irA:P?73?2/2010 LA.APP.353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA..APP. 359/2010 LA.APP.3^/2010 LA.APP.363/2010 • LA.APP. 407/2010. LA.APP, 408/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 ],.A,.APP. 725,/2010 l.,A.APP. 726/20J 0 LA.APP. 731,/2010 LA.APP, 732,/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. 828,/2010 ,LA,APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & j'oss-objections) (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,A/illageBijwasan, Delhi) AND ' l.A.App, ,No. ,1195/2008& connected Appealsof VillageBharthal I..A,App, IMo. 2<J'!//0.10& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan i.;\,App,No, "11:/201()& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur . Page 4 of 2!) % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 .A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHA.T RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 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 hi R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.Navlin Swain.Advocates for UOI/L.AC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. LA,AFP. LA.y\PP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. I.A,APP. LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.API'. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 9] 9/2010' 65/2011 120/201] 476/2011 523/2011 536/201]' 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 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011

485./2011 525/201] 554/20]] LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APR L.V.APP. LA..APP. LA.APP. LA,A,PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 . 209/2010 . 249/2010 . 261/2010 . 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 '433/2010 57:^/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/20] ] 591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I-.A.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 4] 2/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/20 ]0 918/2010 64/2011 119/201] 429,/201 ] 522,/2011 535/201 1 LA..APP, No. 1195/2008&conneclodAppeal,sof VillaReBh.rthal A.^pp. No. m/ZOlO&conneclfidAppealsof VillageBijwasan PP No, 111/2010&connpcteciAppealsof Village!pochanpur Pj,?e 5 of 29 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,Village Pochanpur,Delhi) 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, thcreiorewith the consentoflearned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing ot 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 beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, peitaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting compensation ?=13.82 lacs per acre for IMock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired LA.App. Mq. 119.V2008&connectedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal. lA.App, No. -mp.QlO&connectedAppealsofVillagGSijwasan I.A.;App.No. .111/7.0.1,0&connHct(;dAppeaLsof VillapoPochanpur ."aRe 6 of 29 If agriculturallands, appellantshad soughtreferenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt vide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@ ^15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquired land in Block 'A' and @?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

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

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special-Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCe 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, ra. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patii

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & A\nn, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of 'Haryana. & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas I's. State of Punjab if Ors., 2011 (9) SCALJ-i 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003'titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram. Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer Anr vs. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SC'C 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, lA.App. |\i(). fi connoctndAppealsof Villagn Eiharlhal ;.A.App. No. 7.94/2010&• connHcttidAppealsofVillageBijwasan A.App. No 1]1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • ' • ' • Page 7of 29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryand State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risai Singh & Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia & Ann, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769;' General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20.1I) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No.,4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs va-. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Sfstpal & Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) H SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. .Union ofIndia, decided on- , . 26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and Bk-uieRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaid,decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be fn-st understood m order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area overaperiod of tnne and the same cannotbe limitedto the neariliturealone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway'line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividmg it into two parls, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwaylineis the IGI Airport,New Deihi i^VApp. No. 113.V2003&CO,inmcdAppnalsof VillageBharibal |.A.App.^Jo, 2yV2010&connecLdAppalsofVillagoBijw.san -VApp, No. 11.I/2010&connpcttidAppealsof VillaB,.Pochanpur Page 8 of 7.9 - ^ and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Muni towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed-Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalldia. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development oY Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslvL\?c\jto highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharllnal, 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 m question was changed from agriculturar to residential/ .commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notificationof24^'' October,1994,

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. IA.App, Mo, & conncctsdAppealsofVillageBharthal !.A-App..I\lo.?.g/|/?.010& connncledAppealsofViilaBeBijwasan LA.App. No, .l.n/;^010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 9'of 23 Y Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ore, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex eourt in its later decisionin Udho Bass i'5. StateofHuiyana Ors., 20]0(9)SeALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged l<eepingin view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe autlioritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot nteantliatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale priee reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplarscannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued becauseof any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjamMolu Bessaivs. StateofGoa '•nIAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice ofthe land which comes to ?57 laes per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are tire comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/cifclerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. 11-Assessmentofmarket value of the acquired land was sought bv Mr.R.Godara.learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basisof the I,& DO rates fixed by the Govern,nent and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate . .n the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is i.A.A.p 1 "I"",'! """I' °i"'"s" I-A.Adc No village?Bijw3.san •f Nc,nj,.uo&connmetiAppealsof VillagGPochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Poehanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis,appellant Impulse India PrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugned judgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

25.}0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of '-2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

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

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe m.ore recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar.2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered-beforeascertainin2 the valueofthe landunderaccjuisi.ticjn. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSuprem.e Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakirci Patil -versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshoyvinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin .l.A.-App.No, 119V2Q08&connGctadAppnalsof Village Dharthal l-A.App. No. 291/2010&connfictRdAppealsof VillageIJijwasan l-A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppeal.?of VillagePochanour case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana ^ Molu Dessai v^. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in • LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the m.arket value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v,?. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the; impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1' jrained on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notijication of the Mtmicipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The m.asterplan and Notifications of Governmentfor land use change show that in future land, can be subjected to residential commercial and other permissibleuses. It is also pertinent to mention thai the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 7f'' amendment' of the Constitution of India. w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, bv virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, M>as • • deem.eda municipal area and the mtmicipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Pan.cha.yat elections were held in the area. h) Re.fused to apply the law laid down in AIR. Suprem.e' Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr Union of India , and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on Ike price t.ha.t a willing purchaser wouldpay for, the-subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connccled Appcal.sof Village Bharthal l.A.App. Nrj. 291/^.010& connccled Appealsof Village Bjiwasan LA.App. IMo. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVlllagG Pochanpur Page 12of29 / y auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about X2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. j) The valuation of the subject land is even loyver than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated, land. k) Does not take into accountthe possibilityof change of the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and. these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the comm.ercial potentialityof the said land. In Sangunthala v. Ta.hsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 i.t was held, that the purposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas gotbuildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied bv the • buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportionofthe land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands' have the potentialof beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by.Vcd Pal and others of LA. App, No. j47/2009,the factual detailshave been providedwith aprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal-betreated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals. .

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof LA.App. No. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsof Village Bharthal lv\.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Dijwasan lv\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change m land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattairay Thirthkar ra. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) <& Ors. Vs, Union of India & Anr, ];76(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved .Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference -Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals. i5. Arguing the cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale I3eed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence iOi deteiminationof the market value unless and until the same is properly,connected with the land in question and clement of special lancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered ' and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLai •' . ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 721,Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand^ ra. Union ofIndia and Anr., •(2009).15 SCC 769; LA. A.PP. No.656/2008titled as SmMlKumar vs. - Union ofIndia, on 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase , in price in a shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No, 119,5/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App, No, 7.94/2010&connectedAppealsof Villai^eBliwasan lA.App, No, 11,1/?,010&connectedAppealsof VlllaRe Pochanpur and the purchaseras no prudentperson having icnowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay such ahigherpay as reflectedin 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-DetcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis Courtin SuskiiKumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra). .

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat tlie same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing dre mmnmini nidicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, marlcet 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 thatthereis no scopefor fnrtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the RelcrenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while granting appreciation @10% per annum a.id tliereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. ' '

¶17After consideringtlie rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon • recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is thepricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling l-A-.-lPP.No. 1195/2008&conncctndAppealsofVillageBharth.l lAA Appealsof VillageI3i]wa.san • IA.App, No. U.i/ici0&connertticiAppealsof Villagepochanpur Page 15 of 2.9 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana S. Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words "(i) the situationof the acquired land vis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation;

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

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor huildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highymys, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe 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) lands aroundthe acquired,landor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶18ihe potentialityofland for the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for bujldingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for 1A.App. No. 119.'3/?.OQ8&connecledAppealsofVillage Bharthal l-A.App. No, ?.'M/2010&connGctcidAppealsofVillageIBIjWd.^an LA.App, No, 111/2010&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur . ,• Cage 16 of 29 '•4 which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factoi's for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Aima Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of 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 not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Anr vs. MJL Rafig Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhich emergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon 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 compensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

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

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal(Supra),while takingnote ofthe feet that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40/o towaids development charges was im.proper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court iii AnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve aLtention,which are as under:- J A.App, Mo. 11.55/200S& conricctRdAppealsofVillageBharthgl 1A.App. No. 254/2010a connectHdAppnalsofVillagnBijwasan ^ ' LA.App. No. ],1..1./2010&connecfcdAppealsof VlllagGPochanpur Pageiyofz? ' "The legal position is that even.;where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars,which is a bonafide transaction., mhII be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilarlands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the • market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to. an inference that they are yvith reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to... "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira. Patil (Supra), which are as . follows:- '7/ is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place beiM'een a willing vendee and. the willing vendor which, could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determ.ine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determinethe market value of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil ami Namrii! Gas CorporationLtd,

(ONGC) (Supra), are.as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land'prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof la.ndfor developmentin the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices' would be slow^ steady and gra.d.ua.l,yvithoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. LA,App. No. 1195/2008& conntictedAppealsofVillageBhartlial u.A.App.'No.294/2010 & connected Appealsof Village BIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof Village!Pochanpur <7 •V^ On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value cf lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase, in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10%o to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwould dependupon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determiningthe market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved.marketvalue of nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparablelands in theneighbourhood.The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a., neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe m.arket value of a land, acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or LA.App. No. il9I)/200f!& cannnclndAppealsofVillagG Bhcirtha! lA.ApD. No. ?.'M/2010& connnclfidAppealsofVillageBijwasan ' l-A.App.Mo. .11.1/2010&conneciGdAppeal;of VillageFochanp'ir " Page 19 of >9 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from, the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts inprices affectingthe verystandard • ofincrease. " • . .

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourt in Haryam State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC) (Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods:What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands yvith different situalionaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination•of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided • anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal., Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpiir, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., Radha SwamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price wiiich varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which , are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang,^ , , Beas in respectof the compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds l-A.App. No. 1.195/2008&connected.Appealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. Mo. 2!,M/20.10&conncctcdAppealsof Village Bijwasan W.App. Mo. .111/2030&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' ' (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from ?52 lacs-to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars - Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-l/10)'did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-lM'toEx.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of tht^.purchaser, i;e., Radha Swaini Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. z-7. In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used foi* agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No, 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur c. vV • marketprice of the land m questionwould pay such a high price unless and until such purchaseis meantfor specialconsiderationand so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (>^x.PW-]/4 to lix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale-exemplar of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 -and because vide Sale Deed (Itx.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 qucslion.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P, Ram Reddyand On\ K Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. IJowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acqiuredlandwith buildingpotentialityM>ith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a yvelldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood IA.App. NO.-110.V2008& conner.tedApptialsofVillageBharthal , l-A.App. No. 294/Ml.O& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. IMo, 1.1,1/7.0.10a connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpiir n \ J ^

¶31or whetherit he the determinationofthe m.arketvalueofthe acquired land with building potentiality with reference to thepricefetchedby sale ofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any oftheparties, with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts,of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having-regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increaseto be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvaluefor 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. " In view of the diffieultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingtlie same,and transferringpei-petiialleaseholdrights, the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped fi'eehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Oumd(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded tlic DDA rates qua the developedlands as bemg not relevatil:for assessingtlie marketvalue of iA.App.No..ll%M)08& connKlndAppc..al5ofVillaBGL.h.rth3l • - LA.App, No. 3!M/^O:l.0&conncctcdAppeal,?of VillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. mtma &connRcledAppnal.?ofVillagePnchanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration, the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2000,' i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentof DwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland'onlywhen the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,if the gap isot only ot a few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phase.I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of deteimining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. Mo. ]19ii/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No, ?.94/2010& conneclcdAppsaisofVillage Bijwasan J.A,App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pggp 24 of 29 / V escalationoverthemarketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthepreviousyears.

¶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 SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi!Kumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of-Government's minimumprice ofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt IS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the RefeienceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be ' uiban. It is tme that vide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land useot the acquiredland had changcdbiit that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App. No. :i9r)/2d08&connectficlAppenisof VillageBharthni ' ' •LA.App, No. IWpmo&co.nncctndAppealsofVillageBljwasan lj\.App.No. 3,1.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 2S of 29 (7 presume thai the acqiiiied lands had gained potcntiahty for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record tliat till the ~ issuanceof Notificationunder Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been mcreasein price due to higherdemand,on accoimtofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldta (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/ll) emtnot be treated to be sufficient ground to gram higher compensationvdiile relying upon the aforesaid .5ale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Conn in Baryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIBC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for tl-,e lands acquired under the saitte Notificationin the light of the mimmum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agrieulturallaitd in , Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higlier ' potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is agap between what -.App.NaUl/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpL., • Paje 26 of 2.9 would be expccted to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Findingof the ReferenceCourtin matterof VillageBharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButI find that the aspectof higherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport.,Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line, passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NIi-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part 11, dividingthe •acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Flouses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof this Court, on accountof aloresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume higher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof DwarkaPhasc-I. What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10%-increaseover and above market Vpilue oi the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account ofthe higher building.potentialityin the acquiredlands is the l.A./\pp.No. 1.19V2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal .L\.App.No. 294/2010& cormecledAppealsofVillageBijv^asan 1A.App. No.-1.11/2010& connectedAppealsofVillaBePochanpur t. settled legal position aptly iiighlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto,account the increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39-Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact tliat exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing,;aircompensation,il is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurarc treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in S..M Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourl:in these matters on account of the aforesaid loeational advantages providingahigherbuHdingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Aceordmgly,these appeals ai-e partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthaland Village Biiwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpu,-at par with the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof ' IV. No. .1..1..1/20.1C&connc!ctcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur PaRfi 28 of 29 ^-4 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Ihus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthese threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^b^^forthe Category 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per lji.pha for the Category lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid,enhancement in the compensation awarded, sLaiutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,excepttor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, lor which periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof >n the aloi-esaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar Gcnc]-al ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb -A.App, No. U9V2008& connactcdAppealsof VillageBharthal l-A.App, Mo, 2fM/2010&connoctHdAppealsof VillageBijwasan lV\.App. No, 111/7.0.10&conneclodAppealsof VillagePochanpur JUDGE \-'?r >' 'iV • 0 ^ /vio • !'"l" fnl I - IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSliARMA _ Appellant Thx'ougli! Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AiiiitMaan,Mr.JaiPiakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Roiit, 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.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, r. Mr.BanlceyBiliari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, AdA^ocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER • %

12.0L2012 • C.Mo AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). lliis is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 . Page 1 -I'ii' ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen^ givento lemainingcounselfor the appellants. The typogi-aphicalerror pointed out by the respondentmthe decision of 6"' January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the atoresaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.'Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthattiiereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No! 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary coLiectionsbe cajiied out forthwith. In vjewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY.12, 2012 JUDGE-pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

V * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 356/2010 UNION OF INDIA Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray,Advocatesin appealsfiled 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. versus RAGHUBIR SINGH & ANR Through: Respondent Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh 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) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR