Jai Prakash Rana v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb GAUR) JUDGE TI-IE HIGH COURT OF DEIJIil A/F NEW DELHI Reserved on: November

¶182.011 Proriomced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-yV) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHAR.MA Appellant rhroug]i: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr./\m!t Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.SA'erma, Mr.Jitin Tevvathia,Advocates Mr.Ajiand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas. Advocate. Mr.Raghiivinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.lloutray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates, Mr.Pankai Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav. Mr.Deepak Rhosla, Mr.Samit K.hosla and Mr.]~)hanaiijay Mehlawal, Advocates M".}].S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi a.ud iVfr.l'f.S.Rantela,,(./advocates lor respondent in. appiralsfiled by IJOi) versus L' MION INDIA& ANR. Respondcnis rhi'oiigh; Mr.SanjayPoddai",Senior.Ad'v^ocarcwith Mi.Saa[ay Pathak, Mr.Molutrac .Vadha','and M5>.Na\'lin Swain,. Ms;K.K.aiimudiKiran. Advocates lor I.AwUGI Mr.AJay Vern-:a..Ms.Beenashaw Sor.ii, Mr.Mukcsh Kumar, Mr S.K.Sethi,, Mr.P;.ivv:.in!v!athiir, Mr.Kuna] SiiariTja,Advoujii..;icr [)pA !.A.APP4]2'?.0(:)€& CM.No.4096/20C;S fCross-Obiections;. I'A.APP4S2/-'00B-L'\.,\rp,4f>3/20()8;!.,A.AP!'.588/2!)08Ai C;V1.Ma.5990/20!0 (Cross-Obieclions): i.A.Ai'J',697/2008& CM.No.435/200*>iCross-Objcctions);LA.A.rP,70i/20C8& CM.No 510/2009 (Cross-Objextioii.s); !., \,APF 768'200R;. L.A.APP.770/2008. • . Ai'.p. I^a:. ; & c(:",niN.:U:d.•'ippiinls cifVill;i(;i: : ••..Aijo iM;;. /9'l/?0aC c:i;riii(.,|".^clApp(.')l.-iof Vill,=itl{- lA/Vnp rannf-ardAppc;):soi Viilagi:l-ocnaripii;' Pape J. oi 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.774/2008 & CM,No.6n/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.7p5/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No|940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008;LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799^2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.80h/2008;LA.APP.813/2008& CM.No.1795/2009 (Cros-s-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; I.A.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.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572,/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA. APP.993/2008;LA. APP.1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections) ].A.APIM032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008 l.,A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008 LA.APP.l051/2008 & CM.No.l7262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008 LA.APP, 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.]055/2008;LA.APP.1057./2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No. 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059,'2008 & CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1060/2{)08;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections) l,A.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections)

1...A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081./200S & •CM.No.462,/2009(Cross-Obiections) LA.APP. 1084/2008& CM.No. 17302,'2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086,/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.K)87/2008& CM.No.6] 9/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1093/2008; A.y\PP.1094,/2008; LA.APP.1095/2OO8; LA.APP.1103,/2008& CM.No.441/2009 (CrosVObjections);LA:APP.l 108/20.08 & CM.No.3839,/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 109/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008.& (M.No.383]/2009 (Cross-Objectioas); LA...APP.1113/2008 & CM..No.3826/2009 (C:ross-Ob)ections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; LA.APP.l 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); !,A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP:i 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP. 1135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1140/2008; LA.APP.l 156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1159/2008; LA.APP.1161/2008; LA.APP.1166/2008

1..A,APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/20Q9 (Cross-Objections). LA.APP.1168/2008 i.A.APP.l170/2008; LA.APP.l171,/2008; LA.APP.li72,/2008; LA.APP.l173/2008

1..A.APP, 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP. 117.9/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008 [,A.APP.l 182/2008; LA.APP.l 183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections)

1.,A.APP, 1184./2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.APP. 1186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 IAApp iMn U9.S/2008 & connected Appeals of Villaf<('.Bharthal ' • LA App. No, X91/Z010 f* connected Appeals of VillagoBijvvassn LA,App. No, n.l/.'.oio & connerljotj AppenLs of Village Pochanour' Page 2 or 29 % (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008; LA.APP,1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.l203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP.1223/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& CM:.No,6957/2009(Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009(Cross-dbjections); 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. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009: LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009 I. A. APP. 13 6/2009 LA.APP. 140/2009 fA.APP. 162/2009 LA.APP; 197/2009 LA.APP.2()2/2009 (Cross-Objections) !.A.APP.2i 1/2009 l.A.APP.224/2009 (Cross-Ohjections) LA,APP.249/2009 I.A.APP.367/2009 LA.APP.459/2009 LA.APP.489/20,09 LA.APP.494/2009 l.A.APP.507/2009 1,A.APP.511/2009 l.A.APP.572/2009 LA.APP.404/2010 LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; J.-A.y\PP.23Q/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245./2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA. APP.512/2009: LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.AP?.447,/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP. 503/2009; LA.APP.509,/2009: LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP,45./2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008; I,A.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA. AiPP.510/2009 LA,APP.$67/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal,-Delhi) (GRIi:)-B) Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.-BIJWASAN). • •VENDliR KUMAR Appellant Through; Mr.R.S/1'oi-nar, Mr.Virendra Singh 1A./^pp. i\io I19:V^'.0C8& connected Appeals of Villagr Bharltial IA.App. No.?94/,;010 & connccUid Apppalsof Village Bijwasan lA.App No .1.1,1/7.010& connected Appnal.?of Village Pochanpu.' versus Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38. 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) UOI & ANR I>A.APP i-A.APP

1.A.APP. l.A.APP. f.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. i-A.APP. I A. A PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. [.A.APP. LA.APP. I-A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L.A.APP, 52/2010 .56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/20ro 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 40972010

72.3/2010 727/2010 '750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/201 OA-Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadha^^and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals • filed by UOI. Mr.VirendraSingh,Advocatein R-68,71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.BankeyBihar Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. LA. APP, 1.1/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221,/20]0 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288,/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010. LA.APP. 351,'2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 L/V.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 L,A,APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 ,A APP '^^7/9010 LA.APP.406/201.0rtA.APP.407/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 iXTmri' — LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 l.A.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 i-A.APP. 725,/2010 I"A.APP. 731,/20I0 LA.APP. 764/2010 •LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 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. P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA./\PP. & I , 51/2010 ,55/2010 70/2010 22672010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722,/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/1341.7dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND /'i;."•^Jo uy5/?.a08& co.nnucwdAppoalsofVillagH Bhannal A.Apo, No, &connoctHriAppnulsofVillage Bijwasan App No co,nnRctc'clApp(!al.sofvillagePochanpur' .Page 4 of Z9 % (GRID-C) Reservedon: Deceinhp.r18. 2011 tLQJjmncedon: January06 7017 A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR)• sehaj ram and ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B D, Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand p"it for appellant(in ft'Afor appellantin LA.AppaMo.61,64,65/2011) Mr^R^jeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant• versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: ., . Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Ml SanjajKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,^Ms.NavlinSwain.Advocates Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal oharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates ior DDA. LA. AFP I..A.APP LA.APP. LA.APP, la.app. LA.APP. i.A.APP. J^A A]>P. la.apj\ lA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. i-A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. i-A.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 523/2011 536/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA,APP. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489,/20lO 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/20)1 121/2011 485/2011 525/201] 554/2011 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305,/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 57:^/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 6]/20l] . 117/201] 129/2011 52U2011 526/201 ]• 591/20]] LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.A.PP. LA.APP l.A.APP. J. A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L/V.A:PP. 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 758/20] 0 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011

429./201] 522/2011 535/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APR LA.APP, LA.APP. La.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l-A.APP,. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, (Relating to Notification No. F.10(3())96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

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

06.01.2012 I. Since the giounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcrclorewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.R10(3())96-L&,B/LA/134J7dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Iochanpuiare beingdisposedolby 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 Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland 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 @?I2.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired IV\.App.No. ll<)s/2008&connectedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal I.A.App.No. Z9'V?.010&conn(!CledAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No 11 V2010&cornectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 6 of, 29 • agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of I the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Refeijence Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ? 15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees Mfty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of RupeesThiity lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape, of decisions in Executive Engineer, KarnatakaHousing Board vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer, Gadag and Ors., (20i 1) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Ann,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangmithala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 SCC 661; RanvirSingh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs w. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALFT321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased)through LRs vs. Union ofIndia Ann, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Das^ vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SeAJ.E 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALii 362; Avsnash DhavdjiNaik vs. State of Maharashtra,(2009) 11 SCC 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C)No. 4143/2001titled as Smt. Indu Khotana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr w, M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7see 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, App, No..!IS.'j/POOSSi connoctRdAppealsofVillage[iliarthui A.App. No. 2m/7mo &• connnctndAppealsofVillageBijwasan A.App. No i:3/201C&• tonncctedAppealsof VillagePadiunpur. • . PageTofZ-g 1A '\t)p IA /*0|), . A..'\pp, Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC M5\ RisalSingh & Qrs. Vs. I UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, 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 Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs kv. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKum.ar kv. 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 BhuleRam vs. UnionofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371. (). On the strength of the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be In-st understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near futurealone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Aiiport,New Delhi No. :.:.o:v2cos& connectodAppeaLsofVillageBharihal No ''I'l/ZOlO& connccl(!dAppealsofVillagfiBijwason NO ;.U/?.010&connpclpciAppeali;ofVillaHf!PochMnpir Page 8 of 7.9 I A. and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bliarat Petroleumand a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NH-8 from Sbiv Murti towardsDwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions;(i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarni Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor tlie 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 ofVillagesBamnoliandDhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto theah«zrai/mapto highlightthatthe boundary 01 Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpurand Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has tailed 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 entire land ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24'"October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.IC.Rout,learned counsel for the appellamsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama •Ap,. No. 1,^9.VM08&connocv.dAppoaLsof VillafisBharthal • PP..NC).2<M/?OiO&conncclRdAppfialsof Village!Biiwasan ••-Ar-r.'.40. .1]i/,;oi.O&connciclMAppr;alsofVillagePochanpur 2SCr .n/T "y/eratad^Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which ha. been consideredby the Apex Court in its later dee..on rmoBass .s. StateofHaryana&O.S.. 20,0(9)SCALF, •ho,d.ng that the potential of the acquired land must he adjudged -cpmg ,.ew the developmentin the area overaperiodoftime and ^ f-ure alone and if after the Zrnot meanthatthere,s no buildingpotentiality, '0. Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learnedcounsel for the ppc a"t.s upon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight he sale pncereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsand ....cause Of the said variation,thes^ tZZ 1 ^--e because of ''•® "^n'alued , specal advantagesand as per settled legal proposition ^own b, the Apex Court in

(2010)13 SCOriO,theaverageofsalee.e.plarsougl ! as representingthe tnarketprice of the land which comes to .57' P jrcand sincethe sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants - .he compa>.ablesale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the cferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates,«rdete^ininothe .-rlcetvalueoftheacquiredlandis patentlyerroneous n. Assessmentofmarketvalue of the aequtredland was soughtbv . .-cara, learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basisofthe L& X.ates 0.ed by the Government and also on the basis Of pre-rrr ^ a«ou"«.^ ^• he acqun.d land, derenninationof its marketvalue is •i ®connectedAppealsof v/iii.-,""

¶2I.A sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis pfthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on: the basis of the Pre-DetcrminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the achi.owledgem.enton the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.J0.2002 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 areajormore 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 accordance with the la.w laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar.2010(3)SCC 661. ' d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisiiicjn. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSuprem.eCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fa.ki.ra Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowingnigher rate shouldnot be disregardedin lA.App. ^0. Jl9'i/2008&connsctedAppnalsolVillageIJharthal ' • i/> Aop. ivio, ,?!M/2010&connccTOdAppealsofVillagoDijwasan lA.App. No. Ul,'2010Si connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa, 2010(15) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averagingof differenttypes of sales transactions should be cpnsidered while adjudicatinguponcompensationupona certanland. f) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis much higherthan 15 lacper acre^ in BlockAand^13,36,000in BlockBin violation oj tne law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State ofHaryana 2010(1)

¶444As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment •refused^ to return an actualfinding on the issue No 1 jramedon 27.2.2007. g) Lvaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changedand these area., ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesofDelhi State. Ihe masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use^ change show that in future land can be subjected to residential., commercial and other permissibleuses. It is also pertinentto mentionthat the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74""amendment Oj the Constitutionof India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A by virtue of which the Municipal CorporationAct was amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and ihe municipalCounsellor _was electedfrom there. No Panchayatelections were held m the area. h) to apply the law laid down in AIR .Supreme Court 046/ Ranvir.Singhand Anr vs. Union ofIndia andrefusedto comiderthefact thai the developmentin e area has a directefjea on the price that a willin? I-mchaserwouldpayjor ihesuhjedland. . ' ''

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also I./VAPP.^0. &connoctodAppeal,o'" iJharth.l • pp. Ko. Ul/20in&connoctpdAppealsof Villago:Pochanpur auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped 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

¶11It 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. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 altlnough 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. f{%ile determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to be used for building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. mj The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to he treated as house sites. The lands ^'\>ere 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 being put in better use as house sites in the near jiiture. "

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details ha\'e been provided with a pra}/er that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect erf ' A.App. rio. ,119L)/?,008& connected Appeals of VillageBharthal IA.App. Mo. ?94/2010& connocfedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No ]]1/2010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-I DeterminedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area are relevantto determine the market value of the acquired lands 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 rcflcctingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per SectionSl -A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence lOi detenninationof the market value unless and until the same is pioperly connected with the land in question and element of special lancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationof the pioperty,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect maiket value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpai& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Am.,

(2009),15 SCC 769: LA. AFP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price mashortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for r.uch sharp increase are explainedby producingin evidence the seller uA.App No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal IA.App. No. ?.!M/?.010&connectedAppealsof VillaijeBijwasan IA.App No. :i ll/?.0-J.0&conjiectedAppealscfVillaBoPochanpur and the purchaseras no pnidenlperson havinglaiowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin the marlcetwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas. relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decisionof Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidmateBenchofthis Courtin SmhifKumar(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 fixing the minimumindicativepriceofthe 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@lO"/. per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom thepriceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land Acqui,sitionCollectorand so, tlie impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourt whiletakingintoconsiderationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. ' '

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sidesand upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgmem,the evidenceon ••ecord and Uie decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is thepricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling ~dAppea,S0fV.,,a,eBhartha, " Pr

¶0.1 &ccnnectcHiAppealsof v'iHageI'och.npu pur • . • Page 1.5of 2.3 IA.Apo, l.A.App. l-/^.App. seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionofpotentialvalue ofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in IJdho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words;- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or. the town or village which had been growing in size because ofits commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any other kindof importanceor because ofits explosivepopulation; the suitabilityof the acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; possibilityofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on that land; absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsorthe likefor using the acquiredlandfor huildingpurpose; existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin the vicinityor closeproxinrityofthe acquiredland; benefits or advantages of educational Institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the ' acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for huilding purposes, to specify afew. "

¶18I'hepotentialityofland for the puiposeofdevelopmentas also for bujldingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. For the said puiposc, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for No. .M9S/7.008& connectGdAppealsofvillageBharthal No ?.'M/2010& connGctedAppealsof VillageBIjwasgn No, 1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ^ Page 16 of 7.9

(ii)

(Hi)

(iv)

(V)

(vi) which the lands were sought to be acquired'but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash(supra).While reiteratingthe relevantfactors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsofsmall piecesofland relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepiecesof land were not available.

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

714.1he legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalfof the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in vocation, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage availableto them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It IS a well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of proving the true market value ofthe acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the' agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage, 4I. Apex Court in Valliyammai(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acqun-ed 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(Supra) deserveattention,whichare as under:- IA.App. ^•o. ]r55/200S&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ' IA.App. Mo. Jgn/^OIO&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. l\;o. ri,l/«)10&ainnecfedAppealsof VillagePochanpur "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a hona fide transaction, Mnll he considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, .as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of tM>o 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... " 22, ll would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching obsei"vations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira (Supra), which are as follows:- "It is M>ell settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in OH ami Naturai 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, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps.. |y\.App.Mo. jl'JVMOS & connRCtadAppnalsof Village Bhartlial IA.App No. ?.9'J/.?.010& connccted Appeals of VillageBijwasan IA.App. No. j.n/201oa connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page18of29 i On the otherhand, in urbanor semi-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 dei^iandfor 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 marginallyat a nominalrateof1% 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 1-5%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat bestbe onyaroundhalfofit. that is about5% to 7.5%perannum Ihis rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the mneties. to he adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. ^ Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe market value by providingappropriateescalationover the proved.marketvalue (rfnearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there IS no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhoodThe said method is reasonablysafe where the rdied^on-sale acquisition hy onyafewyears, thatkuptofourtofiveyears. Beyond land. What may be areliablestcmclardifthe gap is onlya .few years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandard Z21 '"T"' determiningthe in 1992, adopting the annual increase method nith reference to a sal. or rApp.^,o.u<)5/K)0S&conn.a«dAppaals OfVillager ' . po. Ko ••H'20.T0& conncctcdAppealsofVillagePiiwasan ' IA./.P. connc>acpApp«l.6fVINaSpS:^;,,- -5

¶24I ^ acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergodrasticchange apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffecting,the verystandard of increase. ThisCourtis mindfulofthe dictumoftheApex CourtinHaryana suiteIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for tire acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods-.What was said by the ApexCourtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- When differentcategoriesoflands (or landswith different siiuationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for fwmmg of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referencetv previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alt landsacquiredunderthesame notification." ii-Undisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied ^ upon by the appellants is of Village Poehanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitutiou,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsang.Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Poehanpur at aprice which varied from?52 lacs to ?62 lacs peracre. -6. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW-1/4to tx.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand RadhaSwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand6 Biswassituatedin VillagePoehanpurretNectthe correctmarketvalueof (he land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds -A. VP. No. A'in/mw&tonnocUidAppealsof VillageBijwasan lAAop. No IU/2010& ronncctfidAppMlsofVillagGPoc.hanpur • (Ex.PW-1/4 ' to ?62 lac5 exemplars - . the same mj the aforesai each parcel question, is disclosing r special need Pochanpur ^ brought out been got ex aforesaid sa elicited fron Ihese lands. Satsang, Bei exorbitant p March, 2000 Jai Singh v. No. 999/20;

19.9.2011 a Mamurpur v to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from ?,52 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command irketprice.It was dependentupon the nature and situationof d lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in acking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas jpresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village ide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-I/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not imined by the appellants. Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the e exemplars been got examined, dien it could have been him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami IS who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an rice in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ was also subjectmatter in lA. .,A.pp. No. 266/2008titled as •. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. /Vpp. 0 titled as Raj Siiigh vs. Union of India, decided on in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village s discarded while holding that the same cannot be ti'eated ive price for the acquiredlands. instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence ired lands v/ere being•u.scdfor agriculturalpurposetill their. hus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not nds. No prudent person having-knowledge of prevailing .nd vas as representajt 27, In'the was changed that the acqu acquisition, developed \sk I.A.App. No, 1.195/2008 & conncc l.A,App, No. 294/2010 & ronnccli I.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connacU :fic Appeals of Village Bharlhal :cld AppealsofVillage Bijwasan d Appeals of Village Poclianpiir 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 (]{x.PW-l/4 :o ltx.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale-exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.41per 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 liighway - 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 fetche cannot be tre question.

¶29Eefl wi situated lands \vhcther adop such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar ated as a representative price for the acquired lands in 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 Pfc-Dctcrmincd Rates for the alternate plots' by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parame highlighted b> ,ers governing fixatipn of market value of acquired lands Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. V. 'I^md Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyi "12. I/( determ building sale of (erahadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- )wever, in either of the said cases whether it be the nation of the market value of the acquired land,with •• potentiality wdth reference to the price fetched by jlots in a well developedlayout in the neighborhood IA.App. l;jo. .11.'):)/2008& connecU d Appeals of Village Bharltial I.A.App. Nc. 2!M/,'i01.0 & connccted 1A.App. Mc. 111//',0.1.0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwa.snn Appeal;; of Village Pochanpiir n or M'hetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquire^land with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becom.es inevitallefor the Court to find out what mhU be the price or to befetchedby the sales ofplots'in the layouts, von by any oftheparties, with referenceto theprice leplots couldhavefetched ifsold on the date of the^ vion of the preliminaiy notification under Section the Act. Further, whereno evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighbourhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired land with re.ferehce to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was putand 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 l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such bidlding potentiality arises only when there is no evidenceofsales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof fetched relied u which ti publica 4(1) of the acqi demand, acquirec In view tlic DDA after (Supra), held t rates/Pre-Detcr IA.App. N0..1 & connticlnd , • LA.App. No. 2!MpOI.O& connoctfid A I.A.App. No. 31.1/50.1.0& conneclod A :ired land indicating that there was no immediate as such, for buildingplots even if formed in the land " ' ' • ot the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Chand hat it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment mined Rates in determining rhe market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold laiias. T'ollowihg the dictum of La! Chand (Supra), a coordinateBench 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 \ppeals of Village!Bhartlial 3poal.sof Village Bijwasan jpoals of VillaBG Pochanpur PngG 13 of 23 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, 1 find that the Reference Court has rightly n adoptedthe DDArates-forallotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the market value of the acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32Now \vhat is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method wou d be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, r counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is talcen 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 than the aforesaidespalatedprice 2, the enhancement granted by the Pveference Court is learned senic escalation at year 1984 Notification Notification , the Land Acc and therefor unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Co progressive i acquired lane ' be unsafe, e^ gap between Phase-II is of mode of de ^LA.App. INTo. n9!3/2008 & connoct '.LA Lirt in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt icrease method in assessment of the market value of the only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may ^en if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,if the gap is ofonly of a few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliabListandard-wherethe gap is larger. In the instantease, the ;he two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe ;ermining the market value by providing appropriate !d Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. ?.31/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111./2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur f escalation cver tlie marketvalueofthe nearby,land ofthe previousyears.'

¶34Mr.Sdnjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the ross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has -alation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a Dench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Smhil Kumar (Supra), 1 find that'10% increase on account of higher of the acquired land over and above the market value by the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying. Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt annum cannot be reduced to 10%o per annum. In this view of le cross-objectionsof therespondentare dismissed. respondent/ granted esc coordinate potentiality determined upon Sushi @ 12%) per the matter, t what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's ice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt 3criteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired

¶35Now minimum pi is reasonabl land and as Lo whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the ouil from the date of fixationof the minimum price for the and by the Governmentw.e.f T' April, 2000 till the date of in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or Reference C agricultural ' Notification not.

¶36Adopt pertaining tc learned coun he an agricu on of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land ' the-Notili'cation in question has been assailed by the sel for appellantsbecausc the acquired land had ceased to tural land by virtueof Notific^itionof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is tr Lise of the acc -le that vide afoi'esaidNotificationofthe year 1994 i:hc land uired land had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App. No. :.I95/2d03&connectedAppealsofVillage Bhartli.'ii lA App. No. .^91/2010&conncclp'dAppealso( VillageBliwa,san IV\.ApR. iMo. -iU/WlO& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur i A.App t.A.App, f'A.App. presume tha considered as aspect of thci in question. Satsang, Beas of the said Ian

¶37Rather, issuance of N in Village Poc the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being developedlands. The evidenceled-is lackingon the vital ebeing any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands ^ot only this, even the sale exemplars of Rkdha Swami I heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ds was for agriculturalpuipose. it emerges from the evidence on record that till ilie otificationunder Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein pricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired land? upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.iBut, indeedappellantscannotrely upon"the sale of the land lanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Viilage Samalldia (Ex.PW-l/ll)without'leadingany evidence to establishthat tlie qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalUia(Ex.PW-1/11)arc coinparabicwiththe acquiredlands • i * itiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of cha (Ex. PW-l/lI) cannot'be treated to be sulTicjcnt higher compensation:v^'h,ije relying upon the aforesaid Therefore, in view of the aforc-referreddictum of-the Harycma State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation a), uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded and so the co Village Samal ground, to gran sale instances. Apex Court in (HSIDC) (Supr for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the liiht of the minimum price iixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturlrlandin Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what Mo. 1195/2008&connuclRdA[. l\io. 294/20.10& coiinncttidApf No. 111/2010& conn(3c;i!;a'Aof peals of Village Bharthal aal;:of VillageBljwasan ealsofVillagePochanpiii Page 26 of Z9 i would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minunum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired iingh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find take a different view than the one which had been taken by ench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh iushil Kumar (Supra). lands in Jai L no reason to coordinate f (Supra) and

¶38This C the matters rightly reliec ourt is of the considered view that the Reference Court in pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the, acquiredlands 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 the evidenceon record.ButI find that the aspectof higherpotentialityof the acquiredlands being in close vicinityof die IGl Airport, Indian Oil and eum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 ]'in ding of th Bijwasan, of of the acquir Bharat Peiro Bharthal anc from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part Hi dividingthe I acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the Vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ^ Reference Court. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof aioresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,ceilainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dv/arka Phase-!. What persuac value of the account of th es this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on e higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the IA App. 11!»/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal lAApp. No. 294/2010& connecledAppealsofVillageBljvi/asan IA.App. No.- I.l1/7,010& connectedAppealsofVlllaRePcchanpur t SH settled lega position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- Whei^ once a conclusion is dceached• that there was the possibilityofike acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buddingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringtlie fact that it would be veiy difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fast that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobablitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme fo treatthem aice by unifonnly applying the Governmom^sminimum i agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of ands as there are no special features to treat the acquired tly and so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treated at r counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthai and san. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushi! with equival .prices for the the acquired lands differer par with thei Village Bijw£ Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the market value • these matters providing a hi

¶40Accordi: awarding 10% Reference Coi Bi jwasan. Whi the appellants ( )fthe acquiredlands detej-minedby the ReferenceCourtin on account ol the aloresaid locational advantages ;herbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question, igly, these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of nicreaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the rt mmatters pertaniingto Village Bharthai and Village etreatingthe appcllaatsofVillagePochanpurat par with VillageBharthaiand-VillageBijwasan,the appealsof I'^.App No. .11.9:./2008& corinoclcd IA.App. Mo. 29')/;.'C10a conncclGdA IA.App. No. l;!.l/?.0,u;& connnctcdA \ppeals of Village Bharthai ^peals of Village Bljwa,san • • • jpcalsofVillagePochanpur Category 'A lands in ques £ the appel]an:s of Village Pochanpur•are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these three villagesin questionis determined@f16,50,000/-perjijhsfor the I , ^ 3=, . Yi-i 1 land and @?14,69,600/-per bipha for the Category 'B' ion. Vvh V'i-'

¶41On the; aloresaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siaiutory beii' the judgmen^ granted, exce )fits as per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin reported in Sunder vs\ UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are 3t for the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal. ^ O ^ ior Nvhich periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 'fhcse

¶42The abo appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts, ve captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation General of thi be accordingly January 06, 2012 pkb lA.App, No.1195/2008 & connnctod', lA.App. No. 294/2010& connoctcciAp. lAApp, No. 111/2010&connRCtcdA[' amount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar 3Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets prepared. appeals of Village Bharthal ipcals of VillageBIjwasan ipcal:;of Village Pochanpur r- • , rw JUDGE -iS'-ln THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI /2008 + LA.APP. 1195 % RANBIR SI-I^ UNION OF Throng! V CORAM; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR C.M. AppL JRMA Appellant Tlii-ougl|L: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJaiPrakasli, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewatliia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,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 appealsfiled by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mj.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates jrsus INDIA &ANR. Respondents Y. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with •Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJad^v and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.BanlceyBihari Sharma^Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. ORDER

12.01.2012,

¶0752/2012 (For correction). • This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'' Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/200 3 Page 1 ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas aheadybeen given to re: , Tlie decision o Tiainingcounselfor the appellants. typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the 6 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'perbigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary -Correctionsoecaj,Tiedout.forthwith. In Viewof the aforesaid,this applicationstands-disposedof ~ pkb 12, 2012 - .MJ.DG.E I-AApp.No.1195/2008 Page 2

% + to IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 407/2010 JAI PRAKASH RANA Through: versus UOI & ANR Through: Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 Appellant Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38,41-46, 49, 50-69, 73,75,76) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kum^ Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K-Solanld 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