Karan Singh Rana v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER % 06M.Z012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb j^S^K^ICGAUR)^ 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. b IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November

1.8, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SIIARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepalc Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNIONOF INDIA& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathak,Is^.Mohitraovladhavand Ms.NavlinSwain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LACAJOI Mr.Ajay Vermaj Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA LA.APP.412/2008& CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.452/2008; LA.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& CM.No.5990/2010(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i/2008& . CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page1of 29 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.774/200S& 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.6I5/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.799/2008 & CMNo931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2C08;LA.APP.813/2008& ™.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008& CMNo806/2009 . LA-APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP820/2008-LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP833/2008 LA.APK844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APP.873/2008& CM.No779/2011 (Cross-Objecttons);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV CMNo''7oSf LA.APP.915/2008;LA.APP.951/2008& T» ^ (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP973/2008- ^ CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objection); LA.APPra8-LA.APR976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008;LA.APP.986/2008& CM.No572/2009 (Cross-OJ,ections;LAAPP.993/2008;LA.APPJ029/2 CM.No.17340/2008' (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Obiections) LA.APP.I032/2008& CM.No.599/2009(Cross-ObjectionrLSp LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cr^sOb^ LA APP 1051/2008& LA.APP.1050/2008 IA APP'105-^^008f .1^1^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008 CMNo 176^9000Vr 6/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008& CMNo752/2m? LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & rPro nv ^ \ (C^°ss-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CMNo 17259/2008rrm«c:okw V LA.APP.1O6O/20O8;LA.APP.1O62./2OO8& CMNo 546/S^^^C^^ LA.APP.1073/2008;LA.APP.1074/2008&SNo623/fo09 Si Se.t ' rrv^c ^ 7 ^ r (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No619/2009 J1 a LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008-LA APP 1095/2008-CM No 3m 9000 LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008& CMN03831 900Q LA.APP.1111/2008;LA.APP.1112/2008& CM.No^831/2009(Cross-Objections; LA.APP.1113/2008& CMNo3826/2009 LA.APp':i'l3^«:08;LA.ApTi'S8&CMT74S9[grOb^^l (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1159/2008; LA.APP.1161/2008-LA APP 1166/9008 LA.APP.n84/2008;LA.APP.l.85/2008;LA.APP.llS8lfe^ u:r::==— l-A.App.Nc. IU/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 2 of 29., (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.l193/2008; LA.APP.l194/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008;LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP.II98/2008& 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(CrossrObjections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP 1279/2008 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.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.l08/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; LA.APP.197/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APP.202/2009;LA.APP.203/2009;LA.APP.208/2009& (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009& CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009 ^.APP.224/2009;LA.APP.227/2009;LA.APP.230/20098c CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009-LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009' LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP447/2009-LA.APP.459/2009;, LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009' LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; LA.APP.1138/2008; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP.144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP.199/2009; LA.APP.l177/2008;LA.APP.'1201/20(38;LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.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 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/1,3417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GPaD-B) Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEVENDERKUMAR AppeUant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 11/2010 53/2010 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 49/2010 54/2010 59/2010 223/2010 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 725/2010 731/2010 764/2010 364/2010 99/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011(Cross-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,'VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 17^.App. No. 29.4/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan . LA.App, No.'111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • 'page4of29 % (GRJD-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2017. LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJRAMANDORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16,20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33,36 to 40, 44 to49, 59, 63 to71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNIONOF INDIA& ANR Through: ••••• Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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 523/201r ' 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 554/2011 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 ..577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011. 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. 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 IA.APP. NO. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA aSS' No lll/lowt ofVillageBijwasan• -A.APP. No. lxl/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pages of 29 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. .JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

06.01.2012

¶1Since the groundson which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learnedcounsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-11' in Delhij commenced with the issuance of Notific.ationof 13'^ December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertainmg to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question^ i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward NO.30/2002-20Q3granting compensation@?13.82 lacs per acre for '•Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @^12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil). ^

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheir.acquired LA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IV\.App.No. Hl/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct. 1894 and the ReferenceCourtvide impugned judgmenthad enhancedcompensation@TI5.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' and @?13.36lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhavebeendismissed.

¶5In theseappeals,fiirtherenhancementofcompensationsoughtby the appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at therateofRupees lacsperacre,whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhavesought compensationat the rateofRupeesThirtylacs peracre by relyingupon the precedents in tlie shape of decisions in Execuihe Engineer KarnatuHaHousingBoardv. LandAc<,uisi,ionOfficer, GadaganU Ors..(2011)2see246;AnjaniMoluDessaivs. StateofGoaandAur.,

(2010) 13 ^'^^^^^-.SubhRamandOrsvs.StateofHaryanaandAnr.,

(2010) 1see 444; Sangunthala(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special TehsUdar(LandAcquisition)&Ors.,(2010)3SCC 661;RanrirSingh andAnr,vs. UnionofIndiaAIR 2005 SC 3467; ChindhaFakiraPatU

(D) throughLRs ra. ne SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer,Jalgaon, 2011(2)SCALE321;JaiLai vs. UnionofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; RamaNand(sincedeceased)throughLRs vs. UnionofIndia&Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1(DB); Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State ofPunjab&Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. StateofMaharashtra,(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana&Anr. (2008)2SCC 568; W.P.(C)No. 4143/2003titledas ndu Khorana vs. GramSabha& Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand-AcquisitionOfficer&Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb.(2011) 7sec 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, IA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 1AaJp Jo'fnmm& villageBijwasan A.APP. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175;RisalSingh&Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia&Anr.,2006(89)DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs.Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyamntalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)andAnr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. AllahabadDevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 SCO 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238-KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia &Anr 176(2011)DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titledas SuratSingh v's Delhi DevelopmentAuthority& Anr., decided on 24.04.2008;Om Prakash(dead)byLRsandOrsvs. UnionofIndia,(2004)10SCC627; Satpal& Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA App' N<,.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union decided on

26.09.2011,LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;andvs. Unionoflndia2010

(170) DLT 371. .

¶6On the strengthof the,aforesaiddecisions,at the veiy outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguingcounselfor the appellants thatthe locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturallandhas to be first understood in order to appreciate,its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the a.-ea overaperiodof timeandthesamecannotbe limitedto thenearfuturealone.

¶7Kwas pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counselfor appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passesthrougl,the land ofVillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts. I.e., on the easternsideofthe railwaylineis theIGI Airport,NewDelhi 'AApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageeja a'' lAApp. NO. 111/2010a connectedAppealsofVillagePoZpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airportis located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanldlearnedcounselfor the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentofDwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siraswere also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/mscpto highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

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

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • Page 9 of ,29 Reddi Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haiyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

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

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is l-A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan W.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page10 of 29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant—ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds;- a.) ignores the acknowledgementon the part of the respondent about th^ Award No.26/2002-2003dated

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

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section5 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'bliSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin IVV.App. No. 1195/2008&connectsdAppealsofVillageBharthal i^.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur case the averagesaleprice is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averagingof different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certanland. f) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the marketvalue ofthe subject landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis much higherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockAand ^13,36,000in BlockB in violation of the law laid down by'the Hon'hie Supreme Court includingin Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) I « consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No 1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthai was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinent to mentionthat the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74^ amendment ofthe Constitutionof India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was electedfrom there. No Panchayatelections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also W.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur of29 auctionedsimilarlysituatedland as commercialblocks at the rate ofabout K2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidLandis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe subjectlandis even lowerthan the pre-deteminedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not tal^ into accountthepossibilityofchangeof ffe use ofthe landalthoughthe landwas acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II It is Bharthalwas changedand these areas ceased to be ofomsfatT I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and24.101994 although they clearly establish the commercial whth I I " purposefor ^hich land IS acquired is a relevantfactor Vmie determiningvalm of the property acquiredthefa^t buildingpotentialityto be used .Prglidingpurposes in immediateor in near future needsto be considered. ^ m) The presence ofa number of buildings on the lands acqmred and the said land being occupied by the uildings are to be treatedas house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose ofputting up residential quarters As aportionofthe landis beingconsideredas house sue. the adjoininglands have L pote2l7f beingputin betteruseashousesitesin thenearfuture:"

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App No 347/2009,the factualdetailshave been providedwithaprayerthat the appellantsofthis appeal be treatedat par with the co-appellantsofthe Otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof lA* ZmnZTr'TT 1A.APP No'lii/MinR VillageBijwasan V.APP. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DetemiinedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area are relevantto determinethe market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesrelieduponby the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectmgjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtintheseappeals.

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

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SiishilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat sharp,increase in price in ashortperiodcannotbe talcento be realisticuntilreasonsfor such shaip increase are explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge Of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBench of this CourtinSushilKumar (supra)and Raj 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 the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice of the agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1'' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the ReferenceCourtwhiletoeinginto considerationthe appreciation@ 12% per annum and the same deservesto be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalof the impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the'decisionscited,what emergesis that the true marketvalue ofthe comparablelandisthe pricepaid by willingpurchaserto a willing LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ITV.Aop. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l^.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page15 of 29 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealingwith the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana cfe Ors., 2010(9) SCALE41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or villagewhich had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousorany otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

(li) the suUabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as the casemay be;

(iii) possibilityofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandforbuildingpurpose;

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

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

(vii) landsaroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demandfor buildingpurposes, to specify afew."

¶18The potentialityoflandfor the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large numberoffactors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purposefor lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lV\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur wh.0h the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observedby the Apex Court in vmash(supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevantfactorsfor determination ofcompensatiorfor acquiredlands,it has beenheld by the Apex Court mA,n^Smgh (supra)thatthe exemplarsofsmallpiecesoflandrelied upon ythe appellantscouldnot beagroundto discardthemespecially when exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwerenotavailable.

¶19Aforesaiddictum standsreiteratedby the Apex Courtin Special WOfficer . ^ 714^Uelegalpropositionwhichemergesfromthedecisionsreliedupon on behalfof the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference e..hermlocation, situationor potentialityof the villages, which are -mdarlysituatedhaving similaradvantageavailableto them even as regards fixture prospects, tl,ere is no justificationfor reducing the compensat,onon thegroundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquiredland.

¶20It is awell establishedpropositionof law that the burden of provmg the true marketvalue ofthe acquiredland is on the Statewho has acquired the agriculturalland for aparticularpuq^ose. But it is equany true that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant.For this proposition,the decision of the ApexCourtmKiranTandon(Supra)can bereferredto withadvantage.

¶21ApexCourtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnoteofthe fact that the acquired land was simated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc.,hadheldthatdeduction O400/. towards development charges was improper, TTie pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluDe..ai(Supra) deserveattention,whichare as under:- lA., I.A. LA.'•Z 1°'LXT/ Bharthal •App No lllSina Bijwasan pp. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highestof the exemplars,which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilarlandswhoseprices range in a narrowbandwidth, the average thereofcan be taken, as representing the m.arketprice. But where the values disclosedin 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 accountof under-valuation or otherpricedepressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. " Tl. It would be worthwhileto take note ofthe clinchingobservations pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactionsin respectof the land under acquisitionor in its absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility takenplace between a willingvendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto r^ect the true value, as agreedbetween reasonableprudentpersons acting in the normal marketconditionsare the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principlesto determinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- Primarily, the increase in landprices depends on four factors - situationof the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. ITV.App. No. n95/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan W.App. Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur On the otherhand, in urbanorsemi-urbanareas, wherethe developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivity all around, the escalation in marketprice is at a much higher rate as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities 'due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalationsin prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreperyear, duringthe nineties.On the otherextreme, in remote rural areas where there, was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated Joryearsor 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, thatis about5% to 7.5%perannum This 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. ^ Norrnally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe marketvalue byprovidingappropriateescalationover the _ provedmarketvalue ofnearbylands in previousyears (as-evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelandsin the neighbourhoodThe said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by onlyafew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond ^ neighbouring land What may be areliablestandardifthe gap is onlya few years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandard were 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 AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur P /0^ p. increasemay itself JIT: </«««««/

¶24pricesorsudrlp-n + • • P^^^odsojstagnationin IS Court,smindfulofthedictumoftheApexCourtinHaryana Statelna" DevelopmentCorporation(HSWC)(Supra),regarding compulation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting jparatwesalesmethods.Whatwas said by the ApexCourtin HSIDC (oupra) IS as under:- ^ay for formin, lf\ reTlIZ^/TaZt'^t^rZl somet"^sfelt that determination of 7hkr ZL Zt ^an7Tunr^ statusor situationshouldbe avoided allla °fcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthesamenotification

¶25Undisputediy.in these appeals sale exempla. in and around acquiredland of VillageBharthal. Village Bijwasanof the period in questionare not availableand thesolitai,sale exemplarstronglyrelied - Td . Sale ee SVI ewhichreligiousinstitution,i.e..RadhaSM,amiSatsang,Beas a purchasedthe agriculturalland in Village Pochanpurat aprice whichvariedfrom^52 lacsto?62 lacsperacre. .

¶26WhetheraforesaidSaleDeeds(Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which je basicallybetweenone set ofco-ownersand RadhaS^amiSatsang. easmrespectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand6 ^wasS. te,, VillagePochanpurre.ecttheco.ectmar^tvalTeof ^ -mpla..i.e.. Sale Lds U.A» i (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetliat its price varies from ?52 lacs to -62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentuponthe natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establishthe advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaidsale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been / elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas'^Nhohad purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in 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 V5. 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.

¶27In the instantmatters,though the land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlandswere beingused for agriculturalpurposetilltheir acquisition.Thus,' it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing L/-.App,No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal l.A.App,No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ?1,76,55,172,41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"^ January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

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

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Qrs., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it he the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with' reference to the price fctched by sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tl^'e neighborhood • " \ LA.App. No. ligs/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharthal \ LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan \ lA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 22of29 i

¶31or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood,it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by anyoftheparties,withreferenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasputand increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland^ indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land chargedby the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, Ifind that the ReferenceCoiut hasrightlynot adoptedthe DDAratesfor allotmentofdevelopedlandor the DDA'sPre-DeterminedRates (oi alternateallotmentsfor fixingthe marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease methodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalueofthe landmquestionwhiletaldngintoconsiderationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedsemorcounselfor the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per amium is talcen from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period interveningthe Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixedby the LandAcquisitionCollectoris morethanthe aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancementgranted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra),cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acqmredland only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyondthatit may be unsafe, even if it relates to aneighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthegap is ofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger.In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,itwouldbe unsafeto adopttlie mode of detemiining the market value by providing appropriate LA.APP. No. 119V2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 1.1,1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i escalationoverthemarketvalueofthe nearbylandofthepreviousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying ^ upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt ' @ 12% per annum cannot be reducedto 10% per annum.In this view of the matter,the cross-Objectionsof the respondentare dismissed.

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

¶36Adoption of Goverrunent's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notifi-cationin question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired laiid had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^'' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It istnfe thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use of the acquiredlandhad changedbutthat by itselfis not sufficientto ITV.App. No. 1195/2008& connected AppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePocfianpur Page 25 of29 presume that the acquired lanrlQ iiori gamed potentiahty for being z:r r*'" »- -- spectoriherebe,"ganydevelopn^en.in and aroundtheacquiredlands ^a Beasheavilyrelieduponby the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthesa.dlandswas foragricultoalpu^ose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the 1894"^° 4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, . acquiredlands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been acqured lands upon change of their use post the year 1994 then appellantscouldhavelaidtheirhandson othersaleinstancesin th'e area e11 . " without leading any evidenceto -mplars Of asa^g, in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof " and (Ex.PW-1/l1) are comparablewiththe acquiredlands » so fte contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instanceof _ Vdlage SamaMa (Ex. PW-i/il) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to granthighercompensationwhile relyingupon the aforesaid saemstances. Therefore,in view of the afore-referreddictum of the W (Supra),unifonnrateofcompensationdeservesto be awarded . the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the — price r.ed by the Gove« for the agricultu.lland . Ih., wh,ch",y fe,tors in the rise of price due to higher la.aSS;No'2.JS i V I LA LA, LA, would be expectedto be the marketgrowth ar,d what the market had ac«,allygrown,Govemmenfsminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld reasonable basis for assessingthe marketvalue of the acquired l^dsinJaiSingh(Supra)as well as inSushUKumar(Supra)andIfind no reasonto talceadifferemviewthan the one whichhad beentakenby coordinateBench of this Court in the aforesaid oases of Jai Singh (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).

¶38This Court is ofthe consideredview that the ReferenceCourtin the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly rehed upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural »dsmDelhi to fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsin question. 1-mdmgofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,oftherebeingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situation ofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exempla..is borneout from the evid^ceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin close vicinityofthe IGI Aiipoit,IndianOil and BharatPetroleumDepots and ofRailwayline passingthroughVillage Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 fromShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there bemg Farm Houses in the vicinityofthe acquiredlands has somehowmissedthe attentionofthe ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court,on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlandsin question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseoverand abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on accountof the higherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the •App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur •"I r " '"r I'r' ' KkJij' settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector,

(1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the. acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediateor near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. " '

¶39Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalerice by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellantsof Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil /fMmaj^(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover.and abovethe market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Couit in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providinga higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur the appellants of Village Poehanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perj^^iforthe Category'A' land and@?14,69,600/-per b^forthe CatefcT'e'' lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensationawarded, statutorybenefitsas perthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelayin filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid.Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The abovecaptionedappealsand cross-objectionsare'disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eithersidewiththe Registrar Generalofthis Court,to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06,2012 pkb I^.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan W.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePoehanpur C" r -^SXJNILGAUR) JUDGE pal- • + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI At NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA 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.Raghuvinder (jodana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for - Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Sblanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, V. Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BarJcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DE)A. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M.AppI.No. 752/2012(For correctionY This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^^ January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 y ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselforthe appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6^*^ Januajy, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand itis orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. Inviewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 12,2012 pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 rUNILGAUR) JUDGE Page 2

% + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 406/2010 KARAN SINGH RANA Through; versus UOI & ANR Through: Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Mr.R.S.Tomarj 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) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar^^Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Banlcey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR