Hoshiar Singh Rana v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01,2012 I. Since the grounds pn which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel 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 Iochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-fr in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13^' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Bstates includingvillages in question, I.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward ,No.30/2002-2003granting compensation ?13.82 lacs per acre for l^lock 'A' (level field ~with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissaiisfiedwith the assessmeniofmarketvalue'ofthei)'acquired IAApp.roo.lins/2008&connectedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal .y. App. No. ^.9<V?.0.10&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 1ll/?.030&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' . Page6 of, 29 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@1^15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ^"13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape, of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246;Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Ann,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs, Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 See 661-, RanvirSingh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (sincedeceased)throughLRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana &• Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALr<: 362; Avinash DhavdjiNaik vs. State ofMaharashtra,(2009) 11 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana& Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha '& Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer&Anr-vs. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7see 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, •^App ^io,.! conncctedAppealsofViHageSharthai • ••A.App. r.io, &• connectHdAppealsofVillageBijwasan A.App. No 1 1/20.10&.connp.cledAppealsof VillagePochanpur • ' • •• • • 'S- . Gujarat and Anr., AIR lOOr SC '242,4; State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC US'RisalSingh& Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia&Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union of India and Anr., (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., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (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. 42.84/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRsandOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Saipal & Ors vs. Union of Indian (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushitKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

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

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it vvas uiged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturallafid has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area overaperiodof Urne and the same cannotbe limitedto the near iliturealone.

¶7Uwas pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage ra.iway'line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Aiiport,New Delhi No.D,2;r./2CG3&coonededAppealsofVillageBhaahal ' • ' ,AV.pn. NO. &conncctedAppoalsofVNIag.Bijwasan •'< App.iM(, u 1/20.10&connectodAppealsofVillagoPochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 moicr.,wide startingfrom NH-8 from Sliiv Murti towardsDwarkaSub-City Part-I and Pait-II again divides tlie agricultural land into two portions;(i) North Easternside, where IGI Airport is located;and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalklia.It was also pointed out by Alr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Aiiport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthalatid VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentofDwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-11, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks.'Era^/mapto highlighttliatthe boundary 01 Village Bharthal. Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has •llegally 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 Irom agriculiiirat to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entirelandofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24'"October,1994, 9-It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rom, learned counselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon/•. Rama IA.App, No. l.-,9.poo«&connoctedAppealsofVillageBharthal ^• Pf.. •''o. ,1.1 V.OtO&connoctodAppeal.';of VillagePochanpur 2see3^/' Byae.abaa& Ors, (,995) sec 305, wh.ch has been consideredfey ihe Apex Court in its later decs,on,n VdhoDa.s .s. StateofBaryana&On., 9010(9)SCAIF or the ac,"ir,d,^ « .n v.ew the developmentin the area overaperiodoftime and -not be iimited to anear a.tnre aione and if after the tliatthere,s no buildingpotentiality, 111"T'"" counselfor the thatth"7'" 'highlight " - P'-ereflectedthereinvariedfront^52 lacsto .62,a!sand p;rr;i;~:r—~ ^ ^ l>essaivs Stateofr andAm-., (2010) 13 SCC 710 th. ...1'™pirr:i::;Tr"•"" "• — tt.«.r,Z"l!d!Il°7T ""•°"*' '-- determined rates fixed I i ' the basis of pre-P'o-'-^eyearaltot^ —ate' '»-"<ialieyor the aeJired'I17 of its ntarket value is LA.App.No. 294/?oao&connerteda ?'' Page 10of29 sought on the strength of-saie:rek^lafs;...c)fVillage Pochanpur and ' *; VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DOrates 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, impugned judgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the acknowledgementon the part of the respondent about the A^'ard No.26/2002-2003 dated ^ ]0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred, to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) • . b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates,ofland 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 TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more 1ecent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar.2010(3)SCC'661. ' d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per estabhshedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe laridunderacquisition: e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds produced,before the trial Courtwhereasas pjer the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent • case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land Acqmsition Officer, Civil Apeal No\5475'of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallvheld that Salp Deedshowinghigherrate shoiMnot be disregardedin IA.App, I.A ^o. j:9V2008&cnnfiecVHdAppealsof VillageUhnrthal -App. No. .?94/20l0&connaciodAppealsof VillaRcIJijwasan >A.APP. to. IU,'201C&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Main Dessai vs. State ofGoa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging\of differenttypes of sales transactions should be Considered mMb adjudicatingupon compensationuponucertanland. ,f) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe land is much higherthan 15 lac per acre in BlockAand ^13,36,000in BlockBin violation Of ihe law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ' of Haryana 2010(1) ^LL 444. As a consequence, the impugn.edjudgment •rejused to return an actualfinding on the issue No 1 jramed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof.Delhi State. Ihe masterplan and Notifcations of Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can' be subjected to residential commercial and, other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinentto mention that the \ appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"'amendment Oj the 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) Infusedto apply the law laid down in AIR Stmreme Court 3467 RanvirSingh and Am vs. Union ofIndia andrefusedto considerthefact thai the developmentin the area has a directeffect on the price that a willim, pwchaserwouldpayfor the.subjectland. ') Ignored the fact that Respondent. No. 2'had also i.A.App No 1195/2008 & A.APP .0 ",oio& cnnecodAppsalsofVillagcBiiwasan ^ • App. 111/2010&connoct.dAppealsofVillagePochanpur • • . • • auctioned similarly situated land as .commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and cpridluded that the said land is M'hollyunderdeveloped, land j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. ' k) Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. l) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar.

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesitesin the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved 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-appel.lantsof the otherappealsin these bunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfof the appellants,itwas urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethatthe effectof LA.App. No. i19i/?.008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal .I.A.APP Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan iTv.App.No. Ji1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur . . pagei3of29 urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattairayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra(MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-I DeterminedRates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevantto determine the market value of the acquired larids and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation leflcctingJust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquiredlands is soughtin these appeals. i5. Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay i oddai, learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Lcmd AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence ior determinationof the market value unless and until the same is pioperly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejectedby the RclerenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLa! KV. 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 SushilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharpincrease in price in ashortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increase are explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.APP Nn. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ' lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBiiwasan IA.App rJo.lil/,-'.OiO&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur and the purchaseras no prudentperson haying knowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay siichahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instanceof Radha Swami Satsang, Beas. relied upon by tl,e appellants, but for special consideration,ihus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objectorthat adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DetcrmmedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decisionof Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SushifKumar(supra)andRajSingh (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 fixingthe minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Goyemmeltas on 1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lartds has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in SuMl Kumar (supra) appreciation@10«/" per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor fiirtherenhancementfrom thepriceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the inipugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the keferenceCourtwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while gt'anting apprecanon @10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. •7. After consideringthe rival submissionsadvanced by both the s.desand upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordandthe decisionscited,whatemergesis thattlretruemarketvalue . 01 the comparablelandis thepricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling PI.. ..11/2C10&™nnm«dAppealsof VillagePoch.npttr Page IS of 29 vv seller and the best evidence is the "comparablesale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market Value thereof, stands leiterated 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, religious or any other kind of importance or because ofits explosivepopulation;

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

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto 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 acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,if builton the ' acquired land; and

(vii) Lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand jor building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶181he potentiality ofland for the pu].7)oseofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large numberoffactors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for IA.Apt). No. 119r)/7.008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. i\lo connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App, Mo. .111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur a which the lands were sought'to'beacquiredbut also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash(supra).While reiteratingthe relevantfactors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsofsmall piecesof land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be a groundto discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepiecesof landwere not available.

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

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalfof the appellants is that where there is no basic difference, either in location, situation or potentialiiy of the villages, which are similaily situated having similar advantage available to them even as icgaids futuie prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the btirden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who , has acquired the agricultural land for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally tiue that the burden of 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.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact thai 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 Dessai(Supro) deserveaLtention,whichare as under:- I.A.App. No. LIS5/200S&conncctedAppealsof VillageBhartha! IA.App. t\)o. .7.94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwssan i-A,App. Wo. connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • >3. "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 be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices 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 clinehing 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 "// is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired, lands possessing similar value or utility taken place betM>een a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between ysasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil ami Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availabilityof land for developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity: increase in prices' would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps: IA.App. No. J]9SA'.008& connncledAppealsofVillageBharlliai IA.App No 291/2010& connectedAppealsofVlllaBoBijwasan lA.App.No. U1/2010a connectedAppealsof VillagePochar.pur Pggg jg^^^9 • V'.r,. ... - . On the otherhand, in urbanon.semi-UKbanareas, 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 joi years or rose marginallyat a nominalrate of 1% or 2% per anmim. 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 urhan/semi-urbanareas is about 10%. to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldatbestbe onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5%o to 7.J%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. Norm,ally, recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe marketvalue by providingappropriateescalationover the pi-oved.marketvalue oj nearbylands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonablysafe yvhere the rdied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition -by onlyafew years, that is uplofour to fiveyears-. Beyond that It May be unsafe, even ifit relates to a neighbouring land ^hat may be areliablestandardifthe gap is onlya JeM> years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the^gap is larger For example, for determJnin^the market value of a land acquired,in im, adopting the annual increase method reference to a sal oi- |.A.App.y. X .7008&connectedAppaalsofVillageBhartha. .^Apo. No. ?,oio&connnctedAppealsofVillageBllwasan I-VPD NO UV2010& connMiedAppealsofVillagePochanpyr ••• • acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. Tliis is because, over the course ofyears,"Ike 'rate/ of annual increasemay itselfundergodrasticchange apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase. " fe ! I

¶241his CourtIS mindftilofthe dictumoftheApexCourtinHaryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(BSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods:What was saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- A 'Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or landswith different sItuationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their-value with referenceto previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoided andauniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all Landsacquiredunderthesame notification." 25, Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthai, Village Bijwasanof the period in questionare not availableand the isoiitaiysale exemplarstronglyrelied ^ upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitutioii,i.e.,RadhaSmmiSatsang,Beas liad purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at aprice which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsperacre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds(i;x.PW-l/4to Kx.PW-l./l0) which are basicallybetweenone set ofco-ownersand RadhaSwamiSatsang. Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand6 BiswassituatedmVillagePochanpurrellectthe correctmarketvalueof Ihc landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds' A.App. No. 4/20.10&conntxtedAppealsof VillageBijwasan t-VApp.No ,^V2030&conn.ctodApp.,lsofVi,lagePoJn^• • ' ' ' • • (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereb}^ the entire land of the sale exemplars—Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command i the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale, exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacldng.Therefore,these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-I/4to Ex.PW-l/lO),has not been I brought out as the purchaser/vendee'of these agriculturalland has not been got ex imined by the appellants.Mad the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got-examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swaini Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant pice in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25'"^ was also subjectmatter-inLA. App. No. 266/2008titled as March, 200C Jai Singh Union ofIndia, decided on'23.8.2011and in LA. App. No. 999/20]0 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on ' 19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be t]-eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands, instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were beingused foi" agriculturalpuiposetill their Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were i7ot

¶27In the was changed acquisition. developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing ed Appeals of VillageBharlhal d Appealsof VlllageBijwasan d Appealsof ViliagePochanpur lA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connec LA'.App. No. 294/2010 & r.onneclt l.A.App. No. ill/2010 & conncctc Page ?.l of 29 m. 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 (;Hx.PW-1/4 Reference Co

¶28So far to Bx.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by the .irt. as the sale-exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of -?1,76,55,172. needs to be i U per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,^OOO, it loted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the' National Highway - 8 and because vide Ssile Deed (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon rncluding tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetchecjl such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar ated as a representative price for the acquired lands in •cannot be tre quesUon.

29.' Left wi situated lands ^vhcther adop question.

¶30Parame hiohlighted b) th no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly in the vicinity, now it is required to be-considered as to ion of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Prc-Determincd Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in ers governing fixation of market value of acquired lands Apex Court in its decisidn reported as F. Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Lancl Acquisition Officer Hydembad Urban. Development •iuthority Hyderabad and Ors., ]995'(2) SCC 305 are as under;- •72. IJ( delerml mever, in either of the said cases whether it be the nation of the market vahie of the acquired land,with buildingpotentialityM>ith. referenceto -the price;fetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayout in the neighborhood. 'V.App. No.:119:;/2008& mnnfirted. Appeals of VillageBhartlial I.A.App. No. 294/:!01.0 & connccted l.A.App. Mo. 1.11/20.10 conncctcd Appfials of Village Bijwasan AppeaLs of Village pocharipiir

31.. or whetherit bethedeterminationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land with buildingpotentiality with reference-to thepric^fetchedby-saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped' layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes mevitallefor the Court to find out what will be the price 'or to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, ipon by any oftheparties;,.withreferenceto theprice 'neplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date of the ion of the preliminary notification under Section ' the Act. Further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by the scales oftheplots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhood,of the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicaiionunder Section 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having.regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto - be made available in that.regard. A small percentage increase^to be given shall not exceed 1/5th ofthe market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof • the acquired land indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " . , fetched relied ii which ti publica 4(1) of In view the DDA after ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofrate ofland charged by acquiringthe agriculturallands,-developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supia),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value' of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lanas. Following the dictum of £«/ ), a coordinateBench of this Court in.Jai Singh (Supra) Chand (Supra) and SushU Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA'rates qua the developedland^ as being not relevaiitfor assessingthe marketvahie of lA.App. No..liqi-/7.008 & conncctnd , LA.App. No. 291/^0.10 & conncdGd A LA.App. No.11,1/20.1.0& connected A ^ppeal.s of Village Bhartlisl 3peals of Village Bijwasan ipeals of VillaBe Pochanpur o the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, 1 find that the Reference Court has rightly not adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments 'or fixing the ' market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now Avhat is requiredto be sc.en is whetherprogressiveincrease method wou,d be relevant criteriafor 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 senicr counsel for the respondcnt/cross-objectorthat even if the the.compounded rate of 10% per amium is taken from the ill the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the for development of Dwarka^,Phase-1 and the instant or developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by uisitionCollectoris more.thanthe aforesaidescalatedprice 2, the enhancen^ient granted by the Reference Court is escalation at year 1984 Notification Notification . the Land Acc and therefoi unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt icrease method in assessment of the market value ol' the 'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What rnay be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofa fcv\' years,may becomeunsafe 3standardwhere the gap is larger. In the instant ease, the :he two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe ermining the ma,rket value py providing appropriate •progressive i acquired lane and unreliabL gap between Phase-II is of mode of de i-A.App, Nt;. 119ii/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBha.thal LA.Aj3p. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan ITV.App. IMo, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page Zt of 29 escalationovertiie marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Smjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that' the Reference Court has granted esc coordinate :alation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a ^ench of this Court in Smhil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation (:^ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), 1 find that;'ro% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value dcteiminedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt ^ 12% per annum cannotbe reduced,to 10%) per annum. In this view of :ie cross-objectionsof the respondentare dismissed. the matter, t

¶35Now minimum pi what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's ice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determining''themarketvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the-ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the raihimuniprice for the' agricultural:and by the Governmentw.e.f April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertammg to the-Notification in question has been assailed by the learned cour^setfor'appellantsbecause the acquired land had ceased to be an agricutural land by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is tr use of the acc -le that vide albresaidNolificationofthe year 1994the land uired land had changedbiit that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App. Ko. ]195/2d03&connected/\ppe;ilsofVillage!Bliarthni I.A App. No. ml20l0 &. conncctndAppeal?of VillageBijwasan W.App. IMo. 3U/;'.0.l0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur l-af!G25of29 1A.^pp LA.App, I.A.App. presume thai: the acquired lands had gained potentiaHty for being considered as . aspect of ther in jquestion. Satsang, Bed of the said Ian

¶37Rather, issuance of !894, the acq increase in pr acquired land appellants cou developedlands. The evidenceled is laclcingon the vital ebeing any development,in and aroundthe acquiredlands ^ot only this, even the sale exemplars,of Radha Swami heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ds was for agricultui-alpurpose. it emerges from the evidence on-record that till tlie otificationunder Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct, Hired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been •ic.e due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe 5 upon change of their use post the year 1994, then Id have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestioa.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the salelof the land in Village Poclianpurto areligiousinstitution.and anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-1/11)withoutdeading any evidence to-establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satscmg, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-l/ll)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village,Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient . higher compensationM'liiie relying upon the aforesaid Iheiefore, in., viev/ oi: the aforc-referreddictum of-the Harycina State Indusinal DevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Suprji),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the' minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agricultural'land in Delhi, which, generally,factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiahty.Taking"note of the lact that there is agap between what Mo. 11;j:3/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal Mo. 2y4/?.010&connecrcdAppeal;:of VillageBijwa.an No. lil/?.010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur '' ground to gran sale instances. Apex Court in would be expected to be the market growtfi^and what the market had actually grov/n, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the ac(quired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find take a different view than the one which had been taken by no reason to coordinate I ench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai (Supra.) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).'

¶38This C!ourt is of the considered view-that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has i;ightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural Iknds in Dell iMnding of th Bijwasan, of of the acquir •evidence on )i to fix the market value of the: acquired lands in question, e Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village there being no evidence that the potential and the situation ed lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from-tJie •ecord. But I find that the aspectof higher potentialityof the acquiredlands being in close vicinityof l:he IGI Airport,Indian Oil and eum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 jrti side to DwarkaSub-City,PartI and Part 11, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in tlie vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the. attention of the ReferenceCourt.In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof aloresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredUandsin question,certainly assumehigher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof Dv/arkaPhasc-1. es this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Comt on Bharat Petro Bharthal anc from Shiv M What persuac value of" the account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lAApp, Nil. 119V2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal lA.ApR. No. 204/2010&connecledAppealsofVillageBijvv/asan IA-App-No.-111/?,010 & connectc d Appeals of Village Pochanpur lands is the Page Z7 of 29 settled lega position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NimsherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords;- 1 once a conclusion is reached that there was the "Whe - —•—c Yvuc) i.ne possibihtyofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up l-nillrlii-irr<^ Tin ; ^ . o Jr' buildl would buildif value O i/iy igs in the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion be sufficientto hold that the -acquiredland had a igpotentialityand proceed to determine its market aking into accountthe increasein price attributable /I l-y^ I -! 7 ^ J w— t ' /». i( to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fail that ii would be veiy difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters ol'assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases, whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby unifomily applying the Government'sminimum agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of ands as there are no special featuresto treat the acquired itly and so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village BhjirUial and Village BijwEsan. Ilowever,while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumai (Stipia),1am inclinedto gram 10?/o increaseover and above the -marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the RelBrenceCourtin prices for the the acquired lands differen par with thei these matten providing a hi on account of the •aforesaid locational advantages iherbuildingpoteniialityin the acquiredlands in question

¶40Accordi awarding 10% Rcfcrcnce Coi: iiijwasan. Whi the appellants ( l/^.App No. 11.2^2008& connoclod, IA.App. Mo. ?.9'l/;?010a connoclcdA l-A.App, No. 111/2030& connncledA igly, these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the rt mmatters pertaining'toVillage Bharthal and Village etreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with )f VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof AppealsofVillage Bharthal ' • 5pealsof VillageBijwasan • • • • >ppealsofVillagePochanpur I. M m the appellan indicated abo three villages Category 'A lands in ques :s of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent i ' ve. Thus, the market'valueof the acquiredlands of these in questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^igh^for the land and @?14,69,600/-per bi^ha for the Category 'B' •ion. ,,

¶41On the. aloresaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siaiiitoryben(;fitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment.reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are 3t for the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, od ofdelayno intereston'theenhancedcompensationshall be paid. These;appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42Ihe above captionedappealsand.cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with directioh to the Registry to remit the amount,ifany, depositedby eitiierside withtte Registrar IS Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets prepared. i granted, exce for wliich per. compensation General of thi be accordingh' January 06, 2 pkb vrv l-ho • ''P Y f 'o '2- • ''' oy '' IA.App. No..1195/2008 & connoclcd lA.App-..No,2!M/2010& conncctcdAp, IA.App. No. 111/2010& connnctodAp ppeals of Village Bharthal ipoaisof VillageBijwasan pealsof VillagePochanpur THE COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 •-? •• % RANBIR SHAJRMA Appellant, Througlf: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMa'an,Mr.JaiPrakasli, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates - Ms. Aiiita Tomar, Advocate. Mi-.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate , Mr.N.S,Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocatesfor respondentin appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates V ersus UNION OF Throng' C.M. Appl. ^ INDIA & ANR. Respondents ii; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI • Mr.Ajay Verma,Mr.S.K.Ssthi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.BanlceyBihari'Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharaia and Mi-.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: •HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR - ORDER

12.01.2012

¶0752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seelcingtypographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LAlApp.No.1195/200 Page 1 of the app] given to re The decision o ication.Advanbecopy oftliis applicationlias Alreadybeen gainingcounselfor the appellants. ! typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the 6 Januaiy, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aloiesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'perbigha', Whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants:Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in pairagraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe caj.Tiedout forthwith. • \ In vieWofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY pkb IAApp.No.1195/2008 12,2012 V,_" Page 2

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. 1- I THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT P^:EW DELHI Reserved on: November 18, 2011 F'rortouncecl on: January 06, 2012 (GRJD-^A) !,A.APP.! 195/2008 (VILLAGE- EHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA Appellant rhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA'erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas. Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and jMr.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.Deepak Khosla,, Mr.Samit K.hosia and Mr.rjhan.anjay MehlaAvat,Advocates Mr.H.S.Rauteki, Advocate , Mr.l.S.Dahiya, A.d'vocale .Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.AtuI Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Raiitela, (..Vdvocatesfor respondent in app;;als filed by UOi) versus b'N'lON (,»!• INDIA& ANR. Re.spondciits 1hrougji; Mr.SanjayPoddar.SeniorAd\'ot;ar.cwith Mr.Sanjirv Pathak, Mr.Mohitrac .Vadhavand Ms.Navlin Swaicu Ms.K.Kaunuidi Kiran. Advocates, for I.A(;.'UOI Mr.Ajay Venna, Ms.Becriashavv Sorii. Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr Sethi, Mr.PirvvanMatliiir, Mr.Kunai Shanna, Advocaie for DDA . !.A,A.PP.4ij.;200-8& CM.No..4096/2008 (CT0ss--0!')jccti0DSj.!.A.APP..45'2;'200;5 .L.'\.APP.453.'-2008;LA.APP.o88/2()08 aiNc-.5990/2.0J0 (Cross-Qbieciionsl. 1.A.AH».097/2008& •CM.Nb.433/2009(Cross-Objccti6n.sj;LA.APP.70i'/20G8A CM.No510/200^ (Cross-Obieciioiis): ! \.APP '76H''200R; t.A.APP.770/2008. l/...App.N'c;. 1lyVSOOBa t;onii.-xled•'ippcjitisCifVillagi!Bh-urili;il ^ :•••...Aoa. No, '/WPmQ coriin!(:'!.'ClApp.i.-il.icifVillagf:Ri.iw;i;,jn lA.A-p iMo. connru'-dAppMboiViilafic:l-0chanpiir Pajie/.olJ9 VV'v... •' ; LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2()09 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No;940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008;LA.APP.78|5/2008;LA.APP,798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP799h008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.'806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.S 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.A.PP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/200B;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections) 1.A.APIM032/2008 c& CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l046/2008 l.,A.APP. 1047/2008;LA.APP. 1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.l049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l050/2008 LA.APP.l051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Obiections);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.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 , (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l059/2008 & CM,No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.1060/2{)08;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); I..A.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.l074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); L.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/200S & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Ob)ections); LA.APP.l084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cros