Aneela Nath v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Unionof India & Anr. JANUARY 06,2012 pkb 5UNIL GAUR) JUDGE / • / % s THE, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHK I'lI^llPuncsdQn:jkmugrv 06^ 20/2 (GRID-A) LA.AFP.l195/2008(VILLAGE-EHARTHAL) RANtiJRSHARIVIA Appelhint rhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmilMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smila Maan,.Mr.R.SA-'erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghiivindcjr Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rouiand Mr.B.K.Iloutray,Mr.M.Azamy\nsari, Advocates. Mr.PankaJ Vivek, Advocatc Mr.Rajesh Yadav,Mr.l^eepakKhosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.]~;hananjayMehlawat, Advocates Mr.fl.S.Rauteia.;y\dvocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Ad\ ocate Mr.Sandeep Thakiiur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Raulela,O\dvocaiesfor respondent in appeals filed by UOi) versus UNION(jp INDIA& ANR. Respondents' ihrough; Mr.SanjayPoddar,Si:'niorA/>,'ocate,wilhiVlr.Sanjuv Patnak, M.r.l\''ion.itrao..iadhcri'and IVls.Nav'iinSwain. Ms.K.KatHriiidilCiraa.Advocates for i,AC/UOI Mr.Ajay Vern^-.a,Ms.Becnashaw Soni. Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pav>/anMatliiir,lVlr.Ki,ina) Sharma, Advocaie for Oi.)A

1..A..A] K4L:/V.00& & CM.No,4096/2v)0i« (Cross-Objections) f APP l.A.AFP.4«/2008;LA.APl\588/2()08 Ca\l.No;5W20J0((toss-Objections); PA.A1'J'.097/2008& CM.No.433/2009YCross-Objections);I..A.,APP.7oi/20C8& CM.No.510/2009 (Cro5S-Oi:yeclioa;;); ,L\.APP 768/200R; f.A.APP,770/2008; l/.-Apfj,No. Uy:)/.'?00?5& coiinccled/"ippiinlsofVilliiRi;Bh,;irl,li;i !A.AiJO. Na. /<J4/:'0a0a. t:oniu!f:i,cdAppt.-jisofVillagt:-ISiiwiiitin IA.App. 1,1 :i & connt-a.-.dAppeaiso-r Viilant:l-ocnani rnjiir Pcifji' I. oi 23 LA.APP.771/20~08 & CMNo.425y20U9. (CrossrObjections); 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.78372008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP,798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,799/2008 & CIU.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.9] 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections);,,, I.A.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/200'9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; •LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.9.86/2008 & CM.No.572,/2009 (Gross-Objection.s);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP. 1029/2008& CM.No.l 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APIM032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008;

1..A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& ClS4.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008; LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No.17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008& CM.No.416/2009(Cro3s-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008& CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections).; LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 . (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008,& CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections); I..A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); I..A.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.l7302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1086.^2008 . & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections);L/\.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.6]9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008;' A.y\PP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; r.A.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 fCross-Objections);r..A.APP.l108/2008 & CM.No:3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);.;;[.A.APP.l111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/20(J8& CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objectioas); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1115/2008-fA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 1219,008; LA.APP.l126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objeoions);' LA.APP.l130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & ~Clyl,No.566/2009.(Cross-Obiectioins); LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008& CrvI.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.]140/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008;LA.APP.l157./2008;LA.APP.l158/2008& CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008;' LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/20Q'9.(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LAAPPJ171./2008;LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.l173/2008; LA.APP.11 75/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008;LA.APP.1179/2008;LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.l185/2008'; LA.APP.1186/2008& CM.No.7013./2009 I'.A.App.No. n95/?.008 & izonnoctGdAppeal.sofVillaReBharthal LA Ape. No. ;'.9i/20.1.0 connectedAppGal.sofVillageBijwas-in . • LA.App. No. n.l/;'.010a connecteclAppeal.sofVillagePochaiiDur'' ' ' ' Page?.ol'2Cl % (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; ,LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008; LA.APP.] 193/2008; LA.APP. 1194,/2008; LA.APP,1195/2008;.LA.APP.1197/2008; LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008; LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008; LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP, 1284/2008; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39,/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; (Cross-Objections);- LA.APP.74/2009; CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); . LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 LA,APP.73/2009 & CM.No,7103/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009' & LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA'.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP. 136/2009; l.A.APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-ObJcctions); LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.224./2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; I..A.APP.367/2009; LA..APP.459/2009; l.A.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP..507/2009; LA.APP,511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009;.

1.A.'APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245,/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP, 13,/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.AP}?.513/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008; l-A.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP.135/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA. APP.201/2009; CM.No.7027,/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009; LA:APP.3 05/2009; LA.APP.45 8/2009; LA.APP.481/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP,506,/2009; .LA.APP.5 10/2009; LA.APP.567/2009; .LA.APP.48/2010; LA.APP.l 176/2008; (Relating to Notification No. F.10(3())/96/L&B/LA/13417 dated 13.L2.2000 issued under Section 4 of the I..and AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award Mo. 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002',VillageBharthal,-Delhi) (GRJD-Bj Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: Januarv 06. 2012 I• LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) ])LVENDERKUMAR , . Appellant IhroLigh: .Mr.FJ.,S.foiBar,Mr.VirendraSingh [./•^App. MO :n95/;'.00S& connectcclAppealsofvillageBhurthal i.A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppeal.?ofVillage Bijwasan 'l.A.App No. T.L1/7.010& connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpu,' I i Advocates-K4r.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38. 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75,76) versus UOl & ANR 1-A.APP. l-A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. -LA.APP. • LA.APP. LA.APP. f.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Ihroiigh: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for LiOI/L.AC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and • Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals • filed by UOI. ' I Mr.VirendraSingh,Advocatein R-68,'7 ] &, 72 in appeal filed by UOI , fvIr.BankeyBijiar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 'LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.

1.1/2010 53/2010 57/2010', 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288,/2010 296/2010 347/2010 35],-'2010 356/2010 742/2010/ 361/2010' 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010' 759/2010 28672010 80/2Q10 : LA.APP. LA.APP. L/V.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lA.APP. L.A.APP. LA.APP, I.A.A??. LA.APP. T.A.APP. •LA.APP. LA.APP. 49/2010 54/2010 59/2010 223/2010 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 725,/2010

731./2010 764/2010 364/2010 99/2010 C.M.No.964/2011 (Cross-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.yVPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA..APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, .LA.APP. & 51/2010

55.''2010 70/2010 - 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010

732./2010 828/2010 (Relatingto NotificationNo.-F.i()(30)96-L&-B/LA/134I7dated 13.12.2000; issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No.' 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AN]) • • • i-A.A|.)f).Mo .1.195/2008& connoapclAppealsofVillagoBharllinl I.A.App. No. mi'mQ &conncictHclAppnalsof VillageBij->^•asa^ !./\.App.No. -J li/.-?0.1.a&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur .Page 4 of ^9 T I / . •% (Gmo-e). Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 .A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: .^...Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.SoIanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in 16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) ' Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61,64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant inR-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar, vSeniorAdvocatewith Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain.,Advocate-^ forlJGI/LAC Mr..BankeyBihariSharnia,Mr.Kiinal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DBA. LA. AFP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.AJ'P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 111/2010 . 16G/2010 . 228/2010 , 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 ,395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 .660/2010 767/2010 9] 9/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/201]' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAEP. (jLA.APP.396/20K)^ •4jv/;!ui(f' "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'. 260/20] 0' 293/2010 ^-1:^/2010:, 489/2010 ' 639/2010 662/2010 • 768/2010 1052/2010' 116/2011 ; 121/201] 485,/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA./\PP. ^AP1\ i-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. . 155/2010 .209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 57^/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/2011-591/2011 , LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA,APP, LA.APP. 156/2010 215/2010 . 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434,/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011

429./2011 522,/201] 5357201 I lA,App. No, U9!5/?.008&conncctRdAppealsof VillaReBharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010&connectGdAppnaisof VillageBllwasan l-A.App No 111/2010& conncctcrjAppealsof VillagePochanpur, Pjp.e 5 of 29 / (Relating to Notification No, F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4-ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: hon'blf;mr" justice sunil gaum

06.0L2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificaiionNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/J3417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-n in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 oi the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, pertammg to vast tract of agricuhiiral land in one compact.block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Kstates includingvillages,in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur,

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellajitsherein in the afoi'csaldthi'ee villagesstood acquiredby the Respoi]dentsvide 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 IBlock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil). • •

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftliei)-acquired i-A.App. No. 1195/2008&connecVedAppGals.ofVilia(>eBharthal l/vApp, No. ?.9'y?.010&cbniKictedAppealsof VillageBijwasan iy\.App.No. n 1/7.010&connectedAppealsofVillaRePochanpur ' • , ."afieeofzg agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ? 15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, relbrences relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape ()f decisions in Executive Engineer, Karmitaka Homing Board Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Main Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Am\,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors ps.. State ofHaryana and Am\,

(2010) 1 sec 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs, Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) &. Ors.,,(2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR'2005 SC 3467; Cltindha Fakira

(D) through LRs'vs, The Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ'227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Am\, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of ilaryana, & -Ors., •2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavdji Ndik 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, 4143/2003 tilled as .Snit lndu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03,2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer Anr ra, M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibkaiand ors ra. ExecutiveEngineer, LA.App. No. Ki conncclfid Appeals of Villageiiharthai !..A.App.No. 7.9'l/7.010&• connccUidAppealsofVillageBijwasan • A.App. No 1]1/2010&connecledAppealsof VillagePoctianpu'r ' • ' • PaBe7of.29 // )1 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001: SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175;RisalSingh Ors. UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Unkm - ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and • Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshhhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammalmd Anr ra. SpecialTehsiMar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Baitatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; liapilMehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofImlia & Anr, 176(20]1) DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority &. Ann, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs ra. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; I.A. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

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

(170) DLT 371. 6; On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguingcounsel for the appellants that the locationand situationot the acquiredagriculturalland lias to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential M-tich must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near livturealone. 7, It was pointed out by M.r.K..S.;romar,counsel lor appellantsi.hat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of'Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into .two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayliiie is the IGI Airport,New Delhi .I-A-Abp.No. ll^?/20G3& connectedAppealsofVillageBharihal IA./\pp. No. 2yi/7.0.1.0&connnclodAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 1U/2010& connectedAppealsof VillagoPochMnpur • ' . ' • Page 8 of 7.9 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IG.I Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980. for establishing'IndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Pctioleum and the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurAvere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the westernside of VillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the developmejil of Phase-IL, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslnvd.^to highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired'land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changcd from agricultural' to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notiiicationof24^' October,]994, 9, It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been v/rongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. A.App. No.,1395/2008& conncctodAppealsofVillafieBharthal •A App..No.?.94/?.010& connuctRCAfpoalsofVillaReBijwasan • A.App, No. Ill/;;ai.OSi conncclodAppeal.';of VillaBGPochanpur Pa'o9ofZ3 /3 , Redd!&Ors. vs. LandAcquisUionOfficer,Hyderabad£ Ors, (J995) t 2see 305, which has been consideredby' tlie Apex eourt in its later decisionin Udho Bass vs. StateofBaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingmview the developmentin the area overaperiodoftime and the same camiot be limited to a near future alone and if after the • acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not.pntthe land to any use, it wouldnot •meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight ' that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because,of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be' thrown out as has been illegallydone' by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to conclude Qiat tliese sale exemplarsare overvalued - becausc of any special advantages'and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoh,Dessaivs. StateofGm mdAm-.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingtlie marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and sincetlie sale exemplai-srelied upon by the appellants are. the comparable'sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the RelercnccCourtupontheminimumratcs/circlerates fordeterminingthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous. •n. Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by ,• Mr.R.Godai-a,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis of the I,& DO rates fixed by tlie Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Governmentfor' alloUnentof alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keeping in view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land,'determinationof its market value is - pp. No.

0.1.0&connectodAppeal.-,of VillagoBIjwssan l-A.App No. 11J.2010&connnctedAppealsorvillafjoPochanpur Pa.K(! 10 o( 29 J J sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalldiaor alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or' on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of.LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe irapugnedjudgmenton the I following grounds a) 'Ignores the acknowledgement on 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 petinon No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellani dated

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

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the Imv laid doyvn by variousdecisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Cckirt in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar.2010(3)see 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the value ofthe land under.acqidsition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbe^fore the trial Courtwhereasas per the'law establishedby the Hon'bleSuprem.e Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira P.atil. versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475'of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shotddnot he disregardedin lA.App. l\io. J19'j/2008& connectudAppealsofVillageIJhnrtha! LA,App. No. 2<M/2010& connectedAppealsofVillaRO IJijwasan W.App. No. Ul/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanour p case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana. Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different tyfpes of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a. certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the• market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land, is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.I framed on 27.2.2007. g) Eva.luaiedthe land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal wa.s changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Governmentfor land use change show thai in future land can be • subjected to residential) commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74'''am.endmenf of the Constitution of India. w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by •virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area, v^'here the land, is situated, was ' • deemeda municipalarea and the mimicipalCounsellor _ was elected from, there. No Panchay.at elections were held in. the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in. AIR Suprem,e Court 3467, Ranvir.Singh and. Anr vs. Union of India and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a. willing purchaser wouldpay for. the.sulijeci land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & conncclcd Appealsof VillajjeBharthal LA.App. No. 294/MlO& connccledAppealsofVillageBiiwa.san LA.App. No. 111/2010&conncclcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page IZ of 29 auctioned similarly sitiiated. land as commercial blocks at the rate of about X2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subject land is even lower than the pre-determinedauction.rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchangeof the use ofthe'landalthough the land M>as acquiredfor development purposes of Dwar.ka Phase 11 It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994' although they clearly establish the' commercial potentialityofthe said land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was held that the purposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the' property acquired the fact' whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land, being occupied bv the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portionoj the land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture.

¶13In ^he brief synopsis by Vcci Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a praverthat the appellantsofthis appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals!

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof !.A.App.No, .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l-A.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageliljwasan l.A,App.No, 311/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur •urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatray Thirihkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC''2238; KapUMehra (Major'General)<& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determinethe market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands, Thus, enhancement of compensation leflectingjust, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals. !5. Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence lor determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and clement of special fancy of the purchaserand other factoi'snamely,nature,situationof the property,proximityto the.villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpai& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand iw. Union ofIndia and Anr., (i.009) 15 SCC 769: LA. A.PP. No.656/2008titled as SushiiKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in.price in a shortperiod cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained_by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 119.V2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bhart.hnI LA.App, No. ?.9'1/?.010&connectedAppealsofVlllaiieBijwasan l.A.App.No. .iij./?.0j,O&connectedAppealsofVlllaBePochanpur ' l"if"14ofZ9 ! and the^purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay 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-DctermmcdRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SushilKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mi.SanjayIoddai, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross- • objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on ] April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by th^ Releience Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) . appreciaition@10% per .annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby, the ReierenccCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation(cd,. \2% per annum and the same deserves Lo be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum "and thereby allowing the ci'oss-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. ' '

¶17After considering tfie rival submissions advanced by botli tiie sides and upon closeperusaloftheimpugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe true marketvalue •of the comparablelandis the pricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling l-A.-App. No. 119^/2008&conndctedAppealsof VillafieBhnrthal i-A.App.Ma. 294/2010&conneclodAppealsof VillagoBiiwa.san lA.App. No. l.l.V2Cana conneclodAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pa|3f! I'i nr2.9 /f / seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. ¥/hile dealing with the questionof potentiafvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court m\Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana .cf: Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words

(i) the situation-ofthe acquiredlandvis~f-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kindof importanceor because of its explosivepopulation;

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

(iii) possibilityofobtainingwater and. electricsupplyfor occupants of buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquired,landfor buildingpurpose;

(v)._ existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensions in. the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired. l.a:n.d which may become available to the occupiersof buildings,if builton. the acquired land; and

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

¶181he potentialityofland for the,purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. I'\)r the said }3uipose,the Court may not only have lo. bear in mind the purpose ibr IA.App. No. ia35/?.0C)8& connectedAppealsof VillageBharlhal LA,App, No 7.94/2010& connGctedAppealsofVillage Uijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppcaLsof VillagePochanpur ' which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscould not be a ground to discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. MJL RqfiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialitv of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage availableto them even as regards future prospects, there is no Justification for reducing the compensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well establishedproposition of law that the burden 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 true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant, bor this proposition,the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage,

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal(Supi-a).whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential I colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve altention, which are as under:- LA.App. No. 31.95/200S& corinocVRdAppealsofVillageBharthal 1A.App. No. 254/;!010&connsctcdAppealsofVillagoBijwasan i-A.App. l\)o. .1.1.1/7010& conncciedAppealsofVlllagn I'ochanpur Page 17 of 2.9

¶22"The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars M'ith reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, M'ill be considered.. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwid.th, 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. " It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertainingto determinationof fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakim Patil (Supra), which are as . follows;- • "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale . transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the 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 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 niarket value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends cm four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in 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 developm.eniin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts orjumps. lA.App. No.31<)5/'008 & connocled Appnalsof VlilagG Bharthal i.A.App No. ?.91/?.010& connected .''vppealsof Village Bljwa.san lA.App. No. lJl/20.1.a&connectedAppealsofVillage Poclianpur Page 18of29 7^ Qn the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations-in prices have touched even 30% to -50% or more per year; during the nineties.• On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there' was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per. annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban 'areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in ' urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%)per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence-of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are - special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to he applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value byproviding appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour to-fiveyears. Beyond that it may be unsafe,,even if it.relates-to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable.standardif the gap is only a. few years, may become unsafe, and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe m.arket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method Mnth reference to a sale or I.A.App. Mo. & connnclRdAppaalsofVillage;Bh'cirtha! • ' I.A.Apo.No. :'.9'1/2010& connnctGdAppealsofVillageBljwa.';an I.A.Apo No. .H.l/M.lO&connRciRdAppeal.^of VillagePoctianp'.ir Page 19 ol 2') acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergodrastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease." • - . ^

¶24Ihis Courtismindfulofthedictum ofthe ApexCourtin Hmyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the. acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods:What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- 'Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming of a residential layout] courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitaiysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSM^amiSatsangBeas had puichased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/]0) which arc basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthecompactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 BiswassituatedmVillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the m,ootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds lAApp. No. 1195/2008&connected(XppGalsofVillageBharthal. l.A.App.No. 29-1/2010a. connectedAppealspf VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. l:ll/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePocha.npur Page 20 ol 29 (Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.Itwas 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 lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW--l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants,liad the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got exajiiined, 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 S\\!ami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh V5. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siiigh ps. Union of India, decidcd on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchprior to their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetilJ their, acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailijjg lA.App. No. 1.195/2008& connectadAppealsofVillafieUharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. J.11/2010&connertedAppealsof VillagePoclianpu; P^gp •,! of 2!) market price of tlie 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 (l^x.PW-1/4 to Iix.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 appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantprice of n,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-l/ll) was situated on .the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (lix.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the stmcture thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative, price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be consideredas to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developedlands and Prc-Dctermined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation'of market value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddy and Ors. Land Acquisition Officer •Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. IJowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvahie ofthe acqtiiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood IA..'\pp.No. :n.3:i/2008& connnr.tcd.AppealsofvillageBhartlial I.A.App. No. 294/;'.01.0&.connccledAppp.alsofVillagG Biiwasan lA.-App. (MO, l.n/P.0.1.0RconnectodAppealsof VillagePochanpiir , PaReZZofZ'J n/L orwhetherithe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland, with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparlies,with referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) oj the Act. Further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it yvas 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 I/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 buildingpotentialityarises only yvhen there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even if formed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands,':developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supia),held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment ratcs/Prc-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands, following the dictum of La! Chand (Supra),acoordinateBench of l.his Court in Ja'i Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) lias excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of lA.App. No.,ll.'j:)/?.008&connoctndAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. No. ?;M/2010&connoctcdAppealsofVillage Rijwasan I'\.App,No, ]1.1/?0.1.0&connectedAppealsofVlllaPe Pochanpur Pans 23 01'29 7r the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court lias lightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA sPre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the maiket valueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question. j2. Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe market value ofthe 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 senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka. Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland'onlywhen the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it mav be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a leliablestandard,ifthe gap is ot onlyofa few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phasc-IIis o! sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 119;)/2008& connoctGclAppealsofVillage Bhai'lhal LA.App. No. 294/7.010& connectedAppealsofVillap.eUijwasan LA.App. No, lll./29:.0&conRoctedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 24 of 29 escalationoverthe marketvalueol the nearb}'landofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that, the Reference Court has _gianted escalation 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a cooidinatebench of this Court'inSushi/.Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation 10% per annum. Alter having perused-thedecision in SmhU Kumar (Supra),1find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum.In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsol the respondentare dismissed.

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

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be ui ban. IL is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994 die land use ol the acquiredland had changed-butthat by itselfis not .sufficientto lA.App. No. M95/200g&connectedAppe.-ilsofVillage Uharthiii

1.A App. No. mnoxQ&co.nncclRdAppealsol Village Bijwa.san i-A.App.No. ]l.l/;>0.10&conrifictcdAppealsof VillagePochanpiir \ presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there bemg any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Symmi Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasemprice due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)withoutieading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplars Radha S,mmi Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplar of VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (llx. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefare, in view of the alorc-referreddictum of the Ape-x Court in Haryana State imhmrial Devdopmem Corporation (IJSIDC)(Supra),uniform,rate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded • lor the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiahty.-Takmg note of the fact that'thereis agap between what -• A.^pp. NO. U95/2008&connoa.dAppealsnf VillageBharthal l..'>.Ap|-j.No, 2.'M/2n.l.O&connocrcdAppealsof VillaijeBljwasan i'..App.No. aj.l/20.l0&connectedADpeaisofVillagGPochanpu, Page 26 of 2.9 ::y would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalprice has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushilKumar(Supra)and I find no reason to take a differentview than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value ofthe acquiredlands in question. I'indingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation ol the acquiredlands is similarto sale.exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But Ifind that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof l:hc IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters ^'ide road starting froiii NH-8 Irom Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part H, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity ol the acquiredlands has somehow missed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof aloresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assuniehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhasc-I. What peisuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarket value ot the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the App, No. 119:j/2008& connectcdAppealsofVillage Bharthal iy\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan IA.App. No.-1.1.1/7.010&connectcdAppoal.';ofVillafioPoclianpur ^3 settled legal position aptly hfglilightedby tlie Apext Court in Mirza NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- men once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsmthe immediateor nearfixture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedlo determine its market value tzikmginto account the increaseinpriceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39ConsideringtJie fact that it would be veiy difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensatipn,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants^of Village Bhartlial and VillageBijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sashil Kumar(Supra),1am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReierenceConn in these matters on account of the" aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question. 40, Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Biiwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpuratpar with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof' IvI" -App. No. 010&conriGcludAppealsofVillageBijwasan • • . l>\.App.No. .1.1.1/20.10&connnct(!dAppealsof VlllagoPochanpur Pagfl 23 of 29 .... \ I /' n the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to' the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^^iSfor the Category 'A' land arid @^14,69,600/-per bxgha for the CategOTy 'b''" lands in question. '^v-vl I

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenelitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, for x^liichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General of this Court, to the conccrnedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb r,-, /Oc. • •I .. p, ^ r.- /'cr; r lAApp. No. .U91V2008&connoclodAppealsofVillage.Bharthal lA.App. No. 2.M/2010&connGctedAppalsof VillagoBijwasan •A.App. No. 1.1.1/7.0,10& connoclcd Annpak nf \/iM="o Page 29 of 7.9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SliARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathi a; Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mi-.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mi-.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in 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 versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Vernia, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR %

12.01.2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correctiom). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 t®:' V ofthe appUcation.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'" Januaiy. 2012 is that in pai-agraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counselappearingfor tire appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto "perbiglta'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be'read as 'per acre'". Necessaiy coiTect'ionsbe caitiedoutforthwith, •In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof — JANUARY12, 2012 JUBG.E pkb l..A.Ap,p.No.1195/2008 l. Page 2

% % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 396/2010 ANEELANATH Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Through: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20,23 to 26,29, 30, 33, 36 to 40,44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61,64,65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR