Union of India v. Attar Singh & Ors

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 % % \ IM lliE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved cm: November 18. 2011 I'ZQIloiillced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) I..A.APP.1195/2008(VILLAGE-EHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA Appellant rhrough; Mr.B.S'.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA-'erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghnvinder 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.Pankai Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav. Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mchlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Raiuela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in app<;alsfiled by IJOI) versus I.NION01' 1NI,)IA& ANR. Respondents Through; Mr.SanJayPoddar,SeniorA.d^'ocate.with Mr.Saajav Pathak, M.r.lVjoh.itrao..'adhci\-and Ms.Navlin Swaici. Ms.K.Kauniudi Kiran. Advocates for [,/\C/lIOI Mr.Ajay Venr.a. Ms.Becnashaw Sorii. Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pav/an Mathin;, IVIr.Kunal Sharma, Advocaie fcr Oi.)A !..A..APP^412'2008& CM.No,4096/2U0.S (Cross-Objectionsj.f..'\.APP.452/2008; !.A.,.VPP.453/2008;LA.APP.588/2008& CMNo.5990/2010(Cross-Objeciions}! i.A.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i/20C8& CM.No,510/2009 (Cross-Objciclions); L V.APP 768/'200R; A.APP,770/2008:, l-A.A;:>p.No. 1iy.V.'^008& conncttorfAppRnlsofVilkiBC 13harlji:,il ; -^.Aoo, No. & conimned Appc/.jl.sof" Villa!?;;BHwiiScin Ift.App. VI !.'?0.10&cor,nc-a'-.dApp;:,j-:>o-r ViiiiiRcl-ocnanpur Pag^, , jg « \ LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Obiections); 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.83()/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.S19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.!029/2008& 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.1048/2008& CN'f.No.785L/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.1052/2008 LA.APP.l053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l055/2008;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.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA..^PP.1060/2008iLA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections); lA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.l081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections): I.,A.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.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM,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-Objectioas); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; L/V.y\PP,l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; !A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135./200S& CFvI.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); IA.APP. 1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008iCross-Objections);LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157./2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008; l-A.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LAAPP.LI68/2008;

1.A.APP.1170/2008; LA.APP.1171./2008;LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA.APP.1173/2008-

1.A.APP.1175/2008;LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.l179/2008; LA.APP.l181/2008! LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6,933/2009(Cross-Objections); I..A.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.l 185^2008; LA.APP.1186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 IA.App. No i 195/?.008& conr.ficted Appeals of VillagH Bharlhal I.A ApD. Mo. '.'.Bi/ZOlO connpclodAppealsof Villago; Bijwassn lA.App. No. :ill/.'.010&connncloc)Appeair,of Villago PochaiiDur' Page 2of 29 % \ % \ (Ci-oss-Objcctions);LA.APP.l190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008-1AAPP 1192/'^008 LA.APR]193/2008;LA.APP.l194/2008;LA.APP.l195/2008-LlAPP.n9^ JAAPP l902/2008^^1 LA.APP.l200/2008 LA.APP.lz0j/2008;LA.APP.1210/2008;LAAPP 1211/2008 rMNo6957/Srr^'^'^rw''^''^ LA.APP.1223/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& CM No 3841 2009 U.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.l241/2008& IAa™ C^-ra-^-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008;LA.APP.1252/2008 l LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008-LA.APP.1279/2008 ..A.A}1.1280/2008;LA.APP.128I,/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008-IA AFP 1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP,37/S LA APP 39 900Q 1AAPP 7-/9000 f CM.No.746/201I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7]03/2009 (Cross-ObjectionsV LAAPPV^S LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM No 953/201 I..A.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.i21,/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP.144/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; LA.APP.190/2009; , LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APP.199/2009- ^'^•^^^•203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009& um.No.7027/2009 1A^^m? LA.APP.210/2009& CM.No.970/2011-(Cross-ObiectionsV LA.API.211./2009; LA.APP.220/2009; J.A..APP222/2009-IAAPP 29'''-^nno' LA.APP.224./2009;LA.APP,227/2009;LA.APP.23072009& (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP'.245/2009; J.A.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.l97/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; I..A.A.PP.367/2009; LA.APP,459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.S11/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; I.A,APP.404/2010; . LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2()09; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.5 12/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP. 13/'201L LA.APP.l177/2008;LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.AP?.447,/2009; LA.APP.480/'2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.S L3/2009; LA.APP,45/2010; .A.APP. 1138/2008; ..A.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 CM.No.7206/2009 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.AiPP,510/2009 LA,APP.56772009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 aielatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Reservedon: Decp.mhpr08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 201? LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE.-BIJWASAN), . VENDERKUMAR , , ••...Appellant Ihrougn: Mr.R,S,'fomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App.1.0 U9.V^0C,S&connectedAppealsof VillageBharlluil 'A.App, iMo, ?94/20T0&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan iA,App No, ,1,1,1/;,010&connectedAppeal,?of VillagePochanpu-L/^ % % versus Advocates Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75,76) , . ^ _ Respondents Mr.SanjayFoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao for Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals filed by UOI, Mr.VirendraSingh,Advocatein R-68,7l &• 72 in appealfiled by UOI Mr.BankeyBiharSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. UOI & ANR I.A.APP, I-A.APP, LA.APP. I-.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.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 & Through; LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP,246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP, 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351,'2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 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, 28672010 LA.APP. 80/2010. C.M.No.964/2011 (C LA.APP.49/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP.54/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP.59/2010 LA.APP LA.APP.223/2010' LA APP" LA.APP,277/2010 LA.APp' LA.APP.284/2010 LA.APP la.A,PP.289/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP.313/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP.348/2010 LA APP LA.APP.352/2010 LA.APP." LA.APP.357/2010 LA.APP. LA.Al^P. 760/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP.362/2010 LA APP LA,y\PP,407/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP, 588/2010 1AAPP !.'A,APP.725/2010 LA.APP.' LA.APP. 731./2010 LA APP LA.APP.764/2010 LA-\pp' LA.APP. 364/2010 ^LA.APP.99/2010 & 'ross-objections) 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 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) " ^ward No. ANjj ' |.AApp.^o ,irj,V.2008&connoa^dAppaalsofVillaPPBhartMnl " ' ' connecLOdAppeal.5of VillagePot:hanpL,T ' • • . PagR 4 of 29 % % % (GRID-C J Reserved on: Dp.c.pmher18. 7011 Pmmimced on: January 06 70n J^A.APP. 111/2010(VIIXAGEPOCHANPUR) SEIMJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-I6, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40 44 to49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64,65/2011) Mr.RaJeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant inR-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain..Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihar!Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. LA,AFP. LA.APP. LA.APP, l.A.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A AJ'P. LA.AP]'. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. r.A.APP. la, APP. I.A.APP.. i,A.APP. LA.APJ\ 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. 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 525/2011 554,/20n LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L/V.APP. LA.APP. l^A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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 129/201! 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. 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 iAApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppeal.,of VillageBharthal A.ApD. No. 2!M/20i0&connectodAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App No 111/7.010&conneclodAppealsof Villagepochanpur (Relating to Notification No. F.l0(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) COR AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 66,01.2012

¶1Since the giounds on wnich enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therciorewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoUficaUonNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating lo geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedol by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-IJ in Delhi, com.m.enced with the issuance of Notification of 13''' December, 2000 under. Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, pcitaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Kstates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j. Agricultuial.land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e.. Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation%^13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @^12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(widiouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheiracquired 1-A.App.No. ll!).S/2008&connectedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal lA.ApD. No. ;'.9.V?.0.i0&connocledAppealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. 11,1/JOlO&connectoidAppealsof VillagePochanpur % \ % L agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of • the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had 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 appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Kamataka Homing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of God and Anr.,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

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

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Ann, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas V5. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCAlJ-i 362; Avimish DhavdfiNaik 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.(e) No, 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RqfiqSaheb, (2011) / S(,.C 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, LA App. |\i(), & tonnoctfid Appealsof Village Lihsrtha! i.A.App. No. & connRctcidAppealsofVillageBijwasan A.App. No 1]a/2010&connnctcdAppealsof VillagePocfianpur • . Page7of 29 /) % % Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,Xlim) 11 SCC \1Risal Singh& Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union ofIndia and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and .Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr.. AWl 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar V5. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011)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 vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423: LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kum.ar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. UnionofIndia, 2010

(170) DUr 371. On the strengthof-the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential'which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area overaperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near Mure alone. Mr.R.S;romar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts. I.e., on-theeasternside ofthe railwayline is the JGI Airport,New Delhi IA.Anp. No. i:0;v20G8&connertcdAppealsof VillageBharchal IA.App. No. 79^/201.0&conncctodAppealsof VillageGljwasan •A.App. iMo. n 1/2010&conno-ctcdAppealsofVillafinPochanpur Page 8 of 7.9 r and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm. Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizrasluva.^to highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous. • 8. It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maari,learned counsel for 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 agricultura!' to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land of VillageBharthal 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. Rama IA.App, No. l iDS/l-iOOS& conncclnd Appoalsof VillageBharthal !AApp.,l\lo.294/2010& conncctcriAppealsofVillageBijwasan !..A,App,No. &connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur PageSofZB Vi Redd,&Ors. vs. LandAcqumtionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex eourt in its later ecisionmUdho Dass vs. StateofHayyana&On., 2010(9)SeALE 41 holding that the potentialof the acquired land nrust be adjudged keepmgmv.ew the developmentin the area overaperiodoftime and nc same cannot be limited to anear future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use. it wouldnot meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality. '0. Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learnedcounsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight • that the .sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ^52 lacsto ?62 lacsand mcely because of the said variation,these sale exemplarscannot be h)-own out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because t-.-e ts no basis to concludethat tl,ese sale exemplarsare overvalued •o-use of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition latd down by the Apex Coun in AnfanlMoluDessaiv. StateofGoa ^ndAnr.,(2010) 13 SeC 710, the averageofsaleexetrtplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe market price of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exetnplarsreliedupon by the appellants ^ a>e the comparable'sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by <he -9 ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circleratesfor detenr,inin.the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous. ,n. Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquired land was soughtbv Mr.R.Godara.leamedcounselfor the appellantson the basis oftheI& tx> rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-e,erm.ned rates fixed by the Oove™.e".for allotmentof alternate ots the year2000-200,.Keepmg in view the location,situationand determinationof its market value is PP Nc,nj,v,(,10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ... * % • . ' ^ ^ sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon 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 writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited of.LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the acknowledgem.enton the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being fl.aM>ed 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 rates of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the laM> laid , down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Taksildar,2010(3)SCC 661. ' d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaM> 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'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcqrusitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin IA.App. i\io, J.l9'i/2008&connocUidAppealsof Villageliharthal IA.Adp. No. ?!M/2010&connnctndAppealsof Villagoliijwasan IA.App. No, 111/2010&c'jnnectodAppealsof VillagePochannur % case the averagesaleprice is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SQC 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 adjudicating upon compensationupon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the marketvalue of the land, is much higherthan 15 lacper acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) see 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment •rejused:to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Lvaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationof the MunicipalCorporationof Delhi, the land, use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changedand these areas ceased to be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries of.Delhi State. The masferplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respiectof the 74^'^ 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, was deemeda municipalarea, and the municipalCounsellor _ was electedfrom, there.. No Panchayat elections were held in. the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 34^67, Ranvir Singh and Anr v.?. Union ofIndia andrefusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpayfor the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact thai Respondent No. 2 had also I.A.App. No. .1195/2008& conncictedAppeaLsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. Mo. 29'1/2010& connHctedAppealsofVillageBiiwa.san IA.App. l\!o. 111/2010&connGctndAppealsof VillagePochanpur p. ^9 auctionedsimilarlysituatedland as commercialblocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land althoughthe land was acquiredfor development purposes of l^warka Phase IL It is reiteratedthat the land use of VillageDhoolSiras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. ' ^ I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthe saidland. InSangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was heldthat thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value oj the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in nearfuture 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 ^1^^ quarters.As aportionoj the landis 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. 347/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethatthe effectof lA.App. No. .n.95/?,008&connHctedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App No. ?94/2010&connoctodAppealsof Village BIjwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePgchanpur P3g0 13 of 29 If ».n,zat.onofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e.. the changein .usehas been consideredin Makesk Damt^ayThinhkarv. State AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapUMeHramajorGeneral,S. y oflnUta^ .,,p0U)DLT 36, and that P.e-cte.m,nethe ",arlcetvalue of (he acquired lands and infact the sale m^tancesrehedupon by the appellantsarecomparableand oughtto have e^ee nponb..^ 7 ; . of co.«o" .cncctntgjust, fair and adequate.narkctvalue for the acc,uiredlands is -m soughtin tlieseappeals. " lanas is pllaMe'^^dt j^-pondents.Mr. Saniay od a,.earnedSen,orCounselurgedthatthottghas perSectionSl-Aof ; ''''• ^-rtifiedcopy of the Sale Deed is an - -sstble^ relevantevidence of the .narKet value unless and unt.l the sa.e is properly connectedwith the land .n question and elententof special , fancy ofthe purchaserand otherfactorsnanrely.nature,situationofthe ™y, proximityto the vi.,geetc. are also requiredto be considered ^ and the sale tnstaneesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect ma,<ct value of the acqutrcdlands have been illegallyrejected by the orerenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsinJaUal •-vntonoj Mia. 2002 ,62) DRf 227, Satpal&Ors vs. Union of India, (]997) 11 SCC 423• /«/ n ^ (^009) 15 see y^oT. - 9),5SCC 769; LA. APR. No.656/2008titledas SusHlKumar.s. man^ o_ India, decidedon 26.09,201.1,it was urged that sharpincrease ..CrZ --nsfor .ncreaseare explained by producing.inevidencethe seller £=HSSH: •. Pagi^u of 29 and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin themarketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha S..amiSatsang. 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 decisionof Apex Court in Lai CHana (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SushilKunu,r(supra)andRafSingh (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 tlte m.mnu,mindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon@12% per annum, .narket value of the acquired iands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kun,ar (supra) appiecatton@10% per annum has been grattted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor fortherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned -judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RelereneeCourtwhiletakingintoconsiderationtheappreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while granting appreciation @,0% per annum and thereby allowmg the eross-objectionsto the aforesaidextern. ' After tonsidermg the rival submissions advanced by both the .^.de.sand upon closeperusalofthe impugned,udgmen,the evidenceon •ecord and the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue 0 .0 comparableland is thepricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling ia.apT <•0. a connecioriAppeal.,of VillagePochanpur Iseller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionofpotentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:-

(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial industrial educational religiousor any other kindof importanceor 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 occupants of buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsorthe likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired,land;

(vi) bene-fits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiersof buildings,if builton the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few. " 1H. 1he potentialityofland for the purposeof developmentas also for buildingpuiposesdependsupon a large numberof factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for 1A.Apo. No, 119S/?,008& conneclGdAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No :?94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan IA.App, No. 111/20.10&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur ' p » n % r' 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).Whilereiteratingthe relevantfactors for determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court mAtma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsoflargepiecesofland were not available.

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

¶7141he legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalfof the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialit> of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage availableto them"even as regards future prospects, there is no Justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well establishedproposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value ofthe acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden ol proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage. ^1. Apex Court in Valliyammal(Supra),while takingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dm-a/ (Supra) deserveaLtention,which are as under;- lA.App. ^•o. 1I55/200S&corinoctedAppc!aisof VillageBharthgl lA.App. Mo. 2S4/?,010a cnnncclcdAppaaisof VillageBijwssan I..A.App.No. 1.11/M10&connsctndAppeafsof VillagePochanpur % % ''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 bona fide transaction, will he considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands 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 with 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:- "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normalmarketconditionsare the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principlesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNatural Gas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas imless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sud.denspurts or jumps. lA.App. No, j iyi/2008 & connccted AppRals of Village Bharllial lA.App No. ?.94/2C10 & connected Appeals of VillaBC! Bijwasari lA.App. No. ]]1./20.1,aa connectedAppealsof Village Pochar.pur Page18 of29 On the otherhand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivity all around the escalationmmarketprice is at a much higher rate as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities,'due rapid development and high demandfor 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 joi yearsor rose marginallyatanominalrateof1% or 2% 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 • areas Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat bestbe onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%perannum fhis rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. ^ Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe maricetvalue by providingappropriateescalationover the provedmarketvalue ofnearbylands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),wherethere IS no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhoodThe said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-saie tramactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subiect acquisition Iyonlyafew years, that is itptofimr to fiveyears. Beyond '•^' •' inay be unsafe, even ifit relates to a neighbouring land IVnat may be areliablestandardifthe gap is onlya "^reliable standard ^vhete the gap IS larger. For example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or '..y^pp,.NIC, iroii.2008aeonnoctfidAppe^ ' ' . . .A.Apo. No. &connnctHdAppealsof VillageGijwasan l''-^P" connecvedAppealsofVillagePochanp..,-, t

¶5% acqmsmonin 1970or 1980may have man),pitfalls. This is became, over the course ofyears, the 'rate' of annual Z'lTTr '"'''Vundergodrasticchangeapartfrom the ht^bhoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pnces0, suddenspurtsmpricesaffectingthe verystandard Ihis CourtIS mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Haryam StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods-.Whatwas said by the ApexCourtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- ^^When differem categoriesoflands (or landswith different niuationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sciV for forming oj a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt thai: determination of their value witPi reference^to previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided andauniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthesame notification." Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Poehanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSimmiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpar at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW-1/4to Kx.PW-l/lO)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas mrespectof the compactbiocl<ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 BiswassituatedmVillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to bo answered. Evidently,aforesaid sale exem.plars. i.e., Sale Deeds l.A.App,No.11M/2008&connccted.Appealsof VillagefJharthal l-A.App, IMo. ;?S'}/2010&cop.ndctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App. No. l,n/2010& conncctedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' "{V (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its pricevariesfroitt ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds {Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-I/10)did not command the same marlcetprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantagesattached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/IO)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedtroin him as to why he had agreedto pay suchahigli price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon ZS* March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jm Singh ra. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh ra. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. ^7, In the instantmatters,though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuch priorto thibiracquisition,but it has come in evidence thatthe acquiredlands were beingused for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing lAApp. No. 119.y2008&connectedAppealsOf VillageBharthal AApp. No. 2.^4/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan W.App. No. il.l/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur % marketpriceofthe land in questionwould pay suchahigh price unless unt,l suchpurchaseis meantfor specialconsiderationand so, in the onsideredopinion of this Court the sale exemplars,i.e., Sale Deeds (l':x.PW-l/4 to Ii..PW-1/lO) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplarof Village Samalkha(Ex.PW-1/11) reliedupon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof ?1.76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar(Ex.PW-l/lI)was situated on the National Highway - 8and because vide Sale Deed ^ (l-.x.PW-I/l1) vendorhadsoldnot onlythe land butthestructurethereon .ncludingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,lane, by-lane,etc.,therefore, 11 had 1-etehed such ahigh price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as arepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question.

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

¶30^Parametersgoverningfixation of marketvalue ofacquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. RamReddyand On-. Land Ac.uisiUon Offlcer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadandOrs., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- -12 However, in eitherofthe saidcases whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvnh,^ ^.fii • ! huiUitnr / , ''•^o.rK.et valueof the acquiredlandwith JUildmgpotentialitywith ''efe^-enmtn tUn • x-t i ' Appealsof VillagePochanpur % or whether it he the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of buildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to befetched by the sales ofplots in -the layouts, relied upon by any ofthe parties, with reference to the price which the plots could havefetched ifsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentiality ascertained on the basis ofevidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage-increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for building plots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate-of land charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of lA.App. No.,11.9!>/2008& connoctcd Appeals of Village! Bhart'nal i.A.App. Mo. ?91/^01.0 & connoctod Appeals of Village Bijwasaii IA.App. No. ]ll/?0.1.0& connectedAppeal.^ofVillage Pochanpur Page 23of29 f )• the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, 1 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 agriculturallands in question.

¶32Novy what is requiredto be seen is whether progressiveincrease method would be relevant criteria for assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ot only ofa few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap between the two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Ihase-II is oi sixteenyears and therefore,it v/oiildbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate t % IT^.-App. Mo. 119^/2008&connfictedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppfialsof Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 1.1.1/203.0&connfictedAppealsof VillagePochanpur t ) . escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwari'anted as a coordinatebench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. Alter having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), 1find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acc]uired 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 viewof 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 reasonable'criteriafor determiningthe marketvalue 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 Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbccause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24'" October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands mthese three villages in question to be ui ban. It is true thatvideaforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto IA.App. No. ]19:;/2dC8&conriKctfidAppealsof VillageBhdrth:!! !AApp. No. mpma &co.nnoctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App. No.,) &connectedAppealsof VillageI'ochanpur presume thai the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being eons,deredas developedlands. The evideneeled is laekingon the vital aspectofU,ere beingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands mquestion. No.only this, even the sale exemplarsof S.an,i heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosetltatthe sale. ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the .^aneeof Notificationunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 4, the acquiredlands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been .nerease.n pr.cedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe .A acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994 then - appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area .n question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe^land •n V,1 age Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance y..lage Samalkha(Ex.PW-I/ll)without leading any evidence to establ.shthat the qualityand potentialityofthe saleexemplarsoiRadha H.™Sa.an,. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof V. age Samalkha(Ex.PW-l/l1) are comparablewith the acquiredlands - so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of V.ilage Samalkha (Hx. PW-l/ll) cannofbe treated to be sufficient ground to grant highercompensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid -le ,nuances,-fherefore,in view of the afore-referreddictum ofthe dsmc)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded o. the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the -n^um p"ce fixed by the Governmentfor the agrlculturalland in -Jh., Wh.ch generally factors in the rise of price due to higher ' ~ Of 'A-Aop. Mo VA-i-ClL >.A.Api. &con"""'!:,'' 'A.App.Wo ni/POLOa "

¶0n1/20.10&connectodAopfiaisofVillagePochnnptH • f^aseZSofag / would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown,Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe marketvalue of the acquired landsmJaiSingh(Supra)as well as inSushilKuma,(Supra)andIfind no reason to takeadifferentview than the one whichhad been takenby coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of 7«,: Singh (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).

¶38Ihis Court IS of the consideredview that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has t rightly relied upon the Governmem'sminimum price for agricultural fj lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsin question. I'lndingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthalarid Village Biiwasan,oftherebeing no evidencethat the potentialand the situation 01 (he acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthat the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport.IndianOil and BhaialIetiolcumDepots and of Railway line passingthroughVillage Bhaithal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from ShivMurti sideto DwarlcaSub-City,Part1and PartII, dividingthe ^ acquired lands in two portions,and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionofthe RcfeienccCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court,on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredland,sin question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I .at persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseoverand abovemarket value ot the acquired lands'a.s assessed by the Reference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the pp. ^C,. lli/Mio&connectedAppn.l.sofVlllagoPochanpur Paf?e27of29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirzci NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibihtyofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buddingsmthe immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increaseinpriceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fait that it would be ve.^- difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan ® never be achieved in the mattersof assessingfair compensation,it is bioadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem witii equivalenceby uniformlyapplying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e.. appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relyingupon the decision in Sushil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover arid abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin thc.se matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertaininglo Village Bharthaland Village Biiwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePoohanpurat par with the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwas^,the appealsof PP NO. .1.U/20.1G&.onnGctpdAppealsof VlllagoPochanpur % the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these three villagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-pev^^^rthe Calcgory'A' land and @?14,69,600/-perh^forthe Cate^'B' lands in question.

¶41On the aloresaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported inrSunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwhere thereis'adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi which periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42Ihe above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar General ot this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb .— \ (SUNILGAUR) JUDGE rat '.App. Mo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal -App. Mo. 234/2010&connectedAppealsof VlllaBeBijwasan '.App. IMo. 111/?,010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

1.A lA, I A, <7 H/1 ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana, Advocate Mr.N.S.j4egiand IvIr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.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.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalShannaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. COl^M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 I _ •yc-' V'#f f % ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen given to remainingcounselfor the appellants. • Ihe typographicalerrorpointed out by the respondentin the decs,on of 6' Januaty, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aoresa.djudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedi. 'perbigha' wieteas .t should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned' counse appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthattl,ereferenceto 'perbigha'inparagraph correctionsbe earnedoutforthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY12, 2012 pkb ""tSWrtLGAUR) JUDGE fAApp.No.1195/2008 Page 2

* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 363/2010 UNION OF INDIA Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathalc,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.BankeyBihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. versus ATTAR SINGH & ORS Through: Respondent Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanld 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