UOI & Anr v. Devender Kumar

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 ;J,' (, IN TBE H.~GH COURT OF DELHJ AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 18 2011 --- ~. --------- -··-------··-·-· ---·-··-L--·---·· Pronounced on: Januarv 06 2012 .• •••·• ---·-···--·--- •••..••• ---- ···--·· --- ___ :.J. --------- (GRID-A)

1./\.Al}P. I J 95:2008 (VILLAGE-BHA RTHAL) RANBJR SHARMA ..... Appellant l"hn);1glr Mr. B.S.Maan .. Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Snula Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates tvlr.Anand YaJav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohfas. Advocate 'I hruti~-:.! 1 ; Mr.Raghuvin,_kr Gouara, Advocate Mr.N.S.~egi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout ;md Mr.B.K.R(Iutray, Mr.l'll.Azam Ansan. Advocaks. Mr.Pankaj V1vek, Advocate Mr.Rc~jesh Yacav. Mr.Dcepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Tv!r.Dhan:mj~lY Mchlawat, .-\dvocat<.:s Mr.H.S.Rameh:, /\dvocate Mr.I.S.Dahiy~~- Ach-ccm.t Mr.Sandecp Thakhur. !\dvnc::lte Mr.Atul Tripmhi, .\dvocaLc Mr.~ .s.~;eg,i an.:l l\1rJLS.Ruillel<',, ( ,-.dv<1ones ft~r respondent .in app;:als tiled by U(}l) lJ "'<;;r' ~\ ~ ·~-,--, • ..... . ,t,:. _._.Jd. llL L i\ 1 '-' , JJ ! I n . I l , \ 1 _., . 1 1 r.-.~m~Jl:iY . IX".!.. ~tr. ,-,~.~n~or .\f: ,,-:)t:J:c \VJi!~ · /,r. 'ict~~.fU\ Pathak. J,;l ;·.1\!J\lliJtrac . .JCU1~\, •wd ~.JI '·· ">J;:. ,. ~; o .->.\- ai n. J'vls.K.Kaumudi l(;r:m . .t\.d\'()L'Ui.e<; t~),. l..'-1.~~--'UOI Mr.Ajay Vem•a. ~/l~Ukcm1sh::Hv Soni. Mr.Mukc<h Kumar. !'-/tr ~: l<.'~cthi. ~Vfr.Pa-.'•un I·v1athur. J'v!r.KunaJ Sharma. /\d' '''.:me h:-r DDA

1.·' .. \;'J'·Ii·?·~)(}(Jf} l~ CM.No.-t(:'-)6/',~!JOS (C:P'-is-!)h_i~~ct:·H~SJ. [_;\ .\PP.4.~:y::~po:~: ;-·1.1 \f,·, 'i<:<;t 1:-;t()!\) 1~'-·ns•· Or))."'I'.IJ('•'')· ' .... ___ \P!'A:u:)IJ08: 1.,'\.:'\PP . .SSH.·_:~tcg 8:. ,, • t • ~ ••• _ • J ·- ...... J •.• .._) ••• \..,. ... J _ L, ... i.:I..APP.<,,n:?.CHl8 & Cl'v1.No .r\_:.ou(n 1(\>)~S-{)r-•j·.:~:tiwi:)): :.,\.-\l"f 7Ul,~OU·; & r:· \1. N:) 51 (1.' :: OV,' ( { 'ro-;~-Or·j,~ct i-)ns:: I \./\!··}' '/(,i(.'}.(J(i~:: L.'\.APP.77{'1'2()0~; I :,./\:·p. C\t. ~ 1 'J:,j-~()J>-; & cnPn(•t led ,"'pp~~~~~·~ of .,iill;lflt! 13f.arUr.il : ·•. \t•;.; 1\J~: /9f1//01t1 ~~ r:orlilf.!' •.:~d 1\pp~· Jb ot v'lllar~f: Bi!wti~Hill 1'\.,\pp ;,.,_. -: 1·; /'iOJG & •:or~nt: t• d /\;)r~(:a:~ o~ Vi !lag(· Foc.r·anp11' LA.APP.77l/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 772/2008; LJ\.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.61112009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; L/\.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA .. APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.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); LAAPP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections): l..A.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519i2009 {Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.i\PP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-ObJections); LA.APP. 993/20(J8;L A .APP .1 029/2008& CM.No.l7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections);

1.!\.J\PJ>. I 032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 046/2008; LA.APP.l 047/2008;LA.APP. 1 048/2008& Cl\1.No.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.lOS0/2008; I.A .A.PP. 1 OS I /2008 & CM.No.l7262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1 052/2008; LA.APP.l 053/2008 & CM.No.416!2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 054/2008 & CM .No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 055/2008;LA.APP.l 057/2008 & CM.No.752i20ll (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 059i2oog & C'v1.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Obje~tions); 1 . ./\. APP .1 060/2{)08;LA.APP .1 062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); l.AAPP.l 073/2008; LA.APP.l 074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 075/2008; LA.APP.l 081/200~ & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); l.A.:\PP.l 084/2008& CM.No.l7302/2Ci08 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-ObjectionS:t, LA.APP.l 087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 093/2008:, A.APP.l 094/2008; LA.APP.l 095/2008; LA.APP.l.103/2008 & CM.No.44I/2009 (Cross-Objections):l.A.APP.ll08/2008 & C:\1.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.ll09/2008: LA.APP.lll0/2008 & Cvt.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.lllli2008; LAAPP.ll12/2008 & C\t1.No.3831 /2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APf>.ll13/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (C.·oss-Objections); LA.APP.lllS/2008; fA.A.P~.1116/2008; LA.APP.l l2l!2008; I ,l\..Al)P.ll26/2008: LA.APP.l129/20(!S & C~"l.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objcct.iom); : .A.APP.l130/2008; LA.APP.l131 OOOX & CM.Ko . .S66/2009 (Cross-Objections); I A.APP.ll33/2008; LA.APP.ll35/2008 & CM.No. 7442/2009 (Cross-Objec1wns); LA APP.l 137/2008 & CM.No.l/283,2008 1 Cross-Objections); LJ\.APP.1140/2008; LA.APP.ll56/2008; LA.APP.ll57/:Wlt8: Lt\.APP.l158/2008 & CM.No. 7774.'2009 'Cross-Objedions); LA.APP.1159/2008; LA /\PP.l161/2008; LA.APP.ll66/200R; LA.APP.116712008 & CM.No 802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LAAPP.ll68/2008; l .A.:'\PP.l\70/2008; LA.APP. i 1 7112008: LA.APP.l 172/2008: LA.APP.l 1 7.3/2008; l A.APP.l17512008; LAAPP.l178/2008; LA.APP.1179i2008; LA.APP.ll8J /2008; I./\.APP.Il82/2008; LA.APP.ll83/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); L/\.:\PP.Il84/2008; LA.APP.ll8S<~008: LA.APP.Il86/2008& CM.No.7013/2009

111.1\pp N.1 :1 l'J~.;/7008 E; r·onr.er;ted /\rpeals of Village• BhMthal 'l\ 1\pp. No. /.911/2.010 & con~ected /\ppral~ of Village Bijwas.Jn I .~.1\pp. No.·; 1 J./:>fliO & cc~nccl,~a 1\ppea:s of Vii lap,-: Pochanour· ~>age "1. ot' 29 \Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008: LA.APP.l193/2008; LAAPP.1194/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008; LA.APP.l198/20Q8& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections): LA.APP.l200/2008; LA.APP.l202/2008; LA.APP.l203/2008; LA.APP.l210/2008; LA.APP.l21112008; LA. A PP .1212/2008; LA .APP .1213/2008: LAAPP .1223/2008: LAAPP .1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l226/2008; Lf\.APP.l241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008; I ,/\.APP.l275/2008; LA.APP.l276/2008: LA.APP.l277/2008; LA.APP.l279/2008; LA.APP.l280/2008; LA.APP.l281/2008; LA.APP.l283/2008; LA.APP.l284/2008; LA.APPJI/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; l.A.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); I ,/\.APP.l 08/2009; LA.APP.l 09/2009: LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.l35/2009; Lt\.APP.I36/2009; LA.APP.l37/2009; LA.APP.l38/2009; LA.APP.l39/2009; I J\. /\PP. 140/2009; LA.APP .143/2009; LA.APP.144/2009; LA.APP .145/2009; LA. /\PP. 162/2009; LA.APP .18712009: LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP .191 /2009; LA.APP.I97/2009; LA.APP.l98/2009; LA.APP.l99/2009; LA.APP.201/2009; LA.APP.202/2009: LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 (Cross-Objections); L/\.APJ>.2ll/2009; LA.APP.22012009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227!2009:. LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP .245/2009; LA.APP .246/2009; I./\. APP .249/2009; LA.APP .25 7 /2009; LA.APP .295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; L\.AP?.447/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; L'\.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.481/2009; I ,A.APP .489/2009; LA.APP .490/2009; LA .APP .491 /2009; LA.APP .493/2009; L/\.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.506/2009; l.A.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009: LA.APP.509/2009: LA.APP.5 1 0/200'J: Li\.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.512.'2009; LA.APP.513/200':J: LA.APP.567/2009; l ,A.APP.572/2009: LA.APP.IS/201 0; LA.APP .45/201 0; LA.APP.48/201 0; I.!\.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.D/201 1: LA.APP.ll38/2008; LA.APP.ll76/2008; I J\./\PP.l\77/2008; LA.APP.l201/2008: LA.APP.23li2009 (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) (GRID-B) f?e.§§rvt:d..PJJ: December _08, 20 11_ P~Q!l<:UJ!C,ed Q_n:_I_anua!J!. 06., 2012 l..A.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-: BIJWASAN) Dl:VENDI:R KUMAR ...... Appellant Through: M:-.R .. S.Tomar, J\tir.Virendra Singh 1 r. flpp. '"0 l19~>/.'008 & con,..ected 1\ppeals of Village Bharthal ' 11./\pp. 1\Jo. /94/2010 & ~onnected /\ppeals of Village Bijwasan 111 /\pp No ll.l/I..GlO & connected ,\ppeal> of Village Pochanpu· • versus UOI & ANR Through: Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14. 38. 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and M.r.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Vircndra Singh, Advocate in R-68, '71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI · Mr.Aankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for D!JA. LA.APP. IJ/201 0 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 I.A.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 L-\.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 22112010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010

1./\.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 Lt\.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 L:\.APP. 2S7/201 0 LA.APP. 288/20l0 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 J.A.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 r '\.i\PP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351.'201 0 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010

1./u\PP. 354/20 I 0 LA.APP. 356/20 l 0 LA./\PP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 35R/201 0 L!\.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/20 I 0 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010

1./u\PP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363C010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 · L\.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP 408/2010 1/\.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2.010 LAAPP. 588/2010 LA.~722/2010 L'\.APP. 721/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.,1,_PP~125!2010 ~PP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/201~J ~·~~~- ~~~~ LA.APP. 732l2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 ~UIO LA.APP. 82812010 I.A.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 36412010 L!\.APP. 77120 lO LA.APP. 80120.10 LA..APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F.l0(30)Y6-L&·B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Sectiori 4 of the Utnd Acquisition Act, 1 894 & Award No. 28/:002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND I·'· App ~o 11'.1~>12008 & connccwd /\ppeals of Vill:;ge Bh~rt11~l • ,\.!lpp Nc• . .!'J•1t i010 & connr:cl!!d 1\ppPa!s of Village 3ijwasan .,, !.p;J ,\J:J J l i! '.OlO & connectPd t,ppeals of Village Pocha~pur ?age 4 of 29 (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LJ\.APP. I J 112010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. ..... App'ellants Through: versus 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) UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents LA.APP. 111/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LJ\.APP. 228i201 0 LA.J\PP. 254/2010 LA./\PP. 292/2010 L/\.APP. 307/2010 1-i\./\PP. ~95/2010 l.t\ APP. 420/2010 LA./\PP. 466/20 I 0

1.1\.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.J\PP. 767/2010 l.A.APP. 919/2010 LA. APP. 6512011 LA.APP. 120/2011

1./\. i\ PP. 476:'20 11 L/u\PP. 523/2011 LA .. i\PP. 536/2011 Through: lVlr.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. LA.APP. 154/20 I 0 LA.APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.APP. 215/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 LA.APP. 250/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.APP. 261/2010 LA.APP. 270/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 305/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 LA.APP. 317/201 0 LA.APP 392/2010 LA.APP. 393,2010 LA.APP. 396/2010 l.A.APP. 397/2010 LA.APP. 412/2010 LA.APP. 432t2010 LA.APP. 433/2010 LA.APP. 434/2010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 57.,12010 LA.APP. 635/2010 LA.APP. 639/2010 LA.APP. 640/201 0 LA.APP. 657/2010 LA.APP. 662:::.010 I..A.APP. 741/2010 LA.APP. 758/2010 LA.APP. 76S/2010 LA.APP. 784/2010 LA.APP. 91 g/2010 LA.APP. 1 052.''20 l 0 LA.APP. 61/2011 LA.APP. 64t2011 LA.APP. 116/2011 LA.APP. 117/20 ll LA.APP. 119/2011 LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 129/20 ll LA.APP. 429/2011 LA.APP. 485/2011

1./\.APP. 521/2011 LA.APP. 52212011 LA.APP. 525/20! 1 LA.APP. 526/201 1 LA.APP. 535/2011 LA.APP. 554/2011 LA.APP. 591/2011 lli.i\pp. No. J 1.95/?008 & connected 1\ppe<Jis of Village Bharthal 11\./lpu. No i94/2010 & connected Appeals of Viii age llijwasan 11\.fl.pp Nc, 111./~010 & connC'clc!d Appeals uf Village PochanpL•r • (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 & A ward No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012 I. Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Notfjication No.F.10(30)96-L& B/JJA/13417 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous ViHages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. Acquisition process for planned development of 'J)warka Phase-I I· in Delhi, commenced with tht~ issuance of Not{(ication of 13 " December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act~ I 894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact bJock comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates Including villages in question, i.e., Bha1ihal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur. , .J. Agricultural land of the appellants herein m the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.e.~ Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award No.J0/2002-2003 granting compensation :@ ~13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (levd field --- with toi) soil) and @) ~12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (with<~ut top soil).

¶4Dissatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acquired L/\.1\pp. No. 11 ~>~>/2008 & connected lip peals .of Village Bh~rthJI 1/u\pn. No. /.9•1/ ).010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan

1.11./\pp. No 11"' .. /7.010 & ror.n<·!r.t<'d 1\ppeals of Village Poch~npu! Pap,e 6 o( Z9 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of · the !.and Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ~15.00 lac.s per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and@ ~13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions iri Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 sec 246; Anjanillfo/u Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr.,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 sec 444; Sang~nthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (20 1 0) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil (/)) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La/ vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India & Anr., • 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 20 J 0(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 201 ] (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavd}i Nai!t vs. State of Malwrashtra. (.?.009) I I SCC 1 71; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of flaryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. lndu Khorana vs. Gram Sablia & Ors1 decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (20 1 1) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, • '\ 11pp No . .ll~;~,i/008 & connected Appeals of Village Sharthai ./\.1\pp. rm. :.>!JI'./7010 &·connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan .'1./\pp. No 111/:?.0lO & cunnc~ctr!d Appeals of Villafle Pocha.,pur ~. Page! 7 of 29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 200 I SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La/ Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, ,-2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr .• AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authori(y. (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(20 11) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & .Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) I 0 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi/ Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. 1\PP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India. decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhule Ram vs. Union of India, 2010 ( 170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by ~1r.B.S.Maan, learned arguing counsel for the appe11ants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be acl,iudgcd keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the sam~.:: cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar, counsel for appellants that D~lhi-Rcwari-Jodhpur broad gage railway line oC Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e., on the <.~astern side of the railway line is the IGI Airport, New Delhi ''''lop r~o. J ~ :!~·'2COi! & connected /\ppeals of Village Bhanha\ I/\ I' :w. No. :><.>4;2010 & connected llppf!als of Village Bijwasan · \ .'\pp. ''Jo 1 I l/20.10 & connr•cted /\pprals ol Villagc!'i'och~nr;u• Pago; 8 of 29 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Fann Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGl Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were e· also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-! and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks stzras/map to highlight that the boundary or Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are • contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has i I legally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16 111 October, 2000 vide which land use· of the three vdlages in question was changed fi·(Jm agriculturar to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and in fact the entire land of Village Bharthal ~1ad ceased to be rural in view· of the Notification of 24 1il October, 1994.

¶9Jt was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K..Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama '1\ IIJJp. No. I·, 'J5 1ZOO!! & conncct('d llppc>als of Village Bharthal : ,\ 1\pn .. No. J.<J~//.Cl"!O & connecteo ~,~ p(!ab of Village Bijwasan I.~ "r·P r;o, 1 1 1 ;;:ow & connected llpp(~als of Village Pocha~pur Reddi & Ors. v.5. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, ( 1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 201 0(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a ncar future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs and e merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be throvvn out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by_ the Apex Court in A1~jani .Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr., (20 l 0) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to ~57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instanc.es, therefore, reliance placed by the • Reference Court upon the minjmum rates/circle rates fur determining the market value of the acquired hind is patently erroneous. 1 J. Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-detcrm incd rates fixed by the Go~.'emincnt for allntment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in vicvv the location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, dc1crmination of its market value is 11\./\pp. No. J 1%/20011 & connected 1\ppea!s of Village Bharthal 1/\.,\pp. No. /94/?010 & connected Appeals of Village! Bijwasan ''' 1\Jjp Nc•. 1'1 1/I.'CWII..: connr!cted Appeals of Village Pochanpur •. • • sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phasc-1 or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant-' Impulse India Private Limited of LA. 1\pp. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No. 2612002-2003 dated ,23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.J9012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated

¶77.2007) hJ Does not account fhr the fact that the Public 1\'otice dated 18.9.1987 adverse(v affected the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under .S,ec:tion 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the Government a/National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the Hmi'hle Suprerne Court in Sangunthala versus Tah~·ildar. 20 !0(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per e~·tablished law has to be consiclered before ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition. e) Does nm deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced b(fore the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble .Supreme Court in the recent case· c~f Chinda Fakira Pati! versus Special Land Acq1.-1isition Officer, Civil !lpeut I'v 1o.5475 of 2007. The lion 'hie Supreme Court has speczflcally held that Sale Deed showing higher rat€.~ should not be disregarded in '/\.;: p.;. 1\c J l':J•,; .DOB & coruwr.•.ed 1\ppp~f.; of Village llharn1JI l1•.1\op. ,,Jo .. :'J'Ii<'OlO & conn\'.f.l.r!ci 1\ppeals of Vili<Jge Bijwas<Jn 1/\.1\pp No. l11/2010 & C'Jn<wcted 1\opeals of Village Pochanpur • 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 types qf sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No. 97 A/2006 to decide the market value of the su~ject 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{/3,36,000 in Block Bin violation of the law laid down by the llon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, th~ impugned judgment · reji1sed to return an actuaL finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) ]~·valuated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the lund use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and .Not{flcat!ons of Government for land use change show that in future land can be su~jected to residential. commercial and other permissible uses. It ls also pertinent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in respect ol the 7 4 1h amendment q/ the Constitution ~f Jndta. w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the AiuniczjJal C"orporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municipal area a11d the municipal Counsellor was elected from there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the lc.:nv laid down in AIR Supreme Court 34-67, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of India and refused to consider the j(Jct that the development in the area has a direct eJ[ect :Jt; the price that a willing purchaser ·would payfhr the subject .land.

i) ignored the fact that R~srcmdenl No. 2 had also Ill llpp No. 119~/ /.008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthill 1/\.1\pp. 1\!o 294/).()10 & connectr:::J Appeals of Village Bijwas<Jn ,,,.r,pp. 1\io. 111/2010 & conncctr!d IIppe<• Is of Village Pochan~·vr • 13. auctioned similarly situated land as commercial &locks 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 o.f Dr11arka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. /) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality qf the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the Land has go/ building potentiality to he used for building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number qf buildings on the lands acquired and the said land heing occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion ~fthe land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential qf heing put in better use as house sites in the near future." In the brief synopsis by V cd Pal and others of LA. App. No. 3 4 7/2009, the factual details have been provided with a prayer 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 of :.!1.1\pp. r.Jc.. i 1.9S,::>OQ8 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 1/\ 1\pp No. 794/2010 1;: conncctf:d AppP.als of Villagr: Bi]wasan ''' ftpp. J\lo. J J 1/iCl.O & connected /\pocals of Village Pochanpur Page 13 C?f 29 • urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land usc has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapi/'Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. linion of India & Anr, 176(20 11) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus. enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals. ! 5. 1\rguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Se~tion 5.1-A of /,and Acquisition Act. 1894. a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence Cor determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the propc11y, proximity to the village etc. ate also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai La/ V.\'. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, ( 1997) 11 SCC 423; La/ Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 sec 769; LA. AP.P. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi/ Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for :~uch sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller I.A.IIpp No. 1195//.00R & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I A.llpp. No. 794i2010 & connected Aopeals of Village Bijwasan

111./\pp rJo. 11 J t70W & connected rippeals of Village Pochanpur • • and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La/ Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi/ Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the ~~ minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1 " 1 /\ pril, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi/ Kumar (supra) apprcciatim1 @ 1 Oo/o per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the I{cfcrcncc Court: while taking into ~~onsideration the appreciation @ l2o/o • per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allm.ving the cross-obJections to the aforesaid extent. I. 7. After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upm1 close perusal of the impugned judgment., the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid by \Yilling purchaser to a willing I A.t\pp. No. 11'1:,/:!.008 & connected llppeals of Village Bharth;JI i •I 1\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I A.tiPI' No ~ .ll/J.C•.tn E, connected App,,~als of Village Pocharopvr Page 15 ot 2.9 • seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Or.\'., 201 0(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- · '(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village lVhich had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;

(ii) ihe suitability of the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be the_y residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be,· Oii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants qf buildings to be put up on that land,·

(iv) absence a/statutory impediments or the likefor using the acquired landfor building purpose;

(v) existence of highways, puhlic roads. layouts qf building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity <~(the acquired land,·

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers ol buildings, if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itse?f being in dernand /r.)~ buildi~g purposes, to spec £(y a few. "

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said ;~urposc, the Court may not only have 1.0 bear in mind the purpose for 1 .\.1\p(J. No. ll'J:,/7008 & conm!ctP.d 1\pppafs of V!llage Bharthal ll\.1\pp. No 7.'!1/701() & connected r.ppe<Jis of Village Brjwas~n I,\ /1pp. No. J 1 JU010 & connected /\pp<!als of Village Poch<Jnpur Paee 16 of 29 • 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 compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 71 4. The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in .location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition 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 particular purpose. 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 Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to \Vith advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra). while taking note ofthc fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of resi.dential col(mics, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% t<)wards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Motu Dessai (Supra) deserve altention, which are as under:- i .\./lpp No. ; 1 S'5/2008 & connPcted llppeals of Vill~ge Bharth'll I /I.AJJ::.. No. 2'l4/7010 & colln(?W.!d llpp<!ais of Village Bijwasan I f'..App. No. 1.11/2010 & r.onnpefcd llppeals of Villa gr. Pochanp·Jr "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar landr;, usually the highest qf the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales qfsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha .Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- ''/t is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place ben·t~een a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed betu:een reasonahle prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real hasis to determine the markez value. "

¶23Principles t.o determine the market. value of the acquired lands as •. reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and 1Vatural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in Land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of !and for development in the area, and the demand for lavzd in the area. In rural areas unless there is any pro.';pect of development in the vicini(v, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any_ sudden spurts or jumps. I A.App No. J 1 ~1~,/2008 & connF!Cled AppP.als of Village Bhartllal '1\.t\pp No 794/2.010 & conncct<?d t,ppeals of Villap,c Bijwasan I A r,pp. No. J l l/20Hl /.!, con netted Appeals of Village Pochar.pur On 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. Jn 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 c~f 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 I 0% 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 app(¥·ing a higher rate of increase, or any .~pecific evidence relating to the actual increase in prit;es, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearh.Y la.nds /n previous .vears (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of an,y contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably sole where the. rr?h"ed-on-sa/e transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is. upro four to .five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring lund What may be a reliabie standard if the gap i.s only a .few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard Hlhere the. gap is larger. For example . .for determining the market value of a land acquil'?d· in 1992, adopting the annual zncrease method "1'ith reference to a sale or I ' l\pp '1<•. I~ •p; · ?OIJP & C!l!'Jnt!Ct~d 1\ppaals of Village Bharthc! ! f', Apo. Nc, '".lJI/~010 & co~nr.cted Appedls of Village lli.iwasan t .~./1pu No. lllf/01 0 & conne>ctcd Appt~al; of Village ?ochanp•;r P~ge 19 of 29 • acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices ajfecting the very standard qfincrease." •

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods. What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:-

¶25,' When different categories of lands (or lands with different siTuational advantages) are acquiredfor the same purpose, sc11' fhr forming of a residential layout. courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with re.ference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notification. " Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars m and around Jcquircd land of Village Bharthal., \'illage Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Vi.llage Pochanpur at a price which varied from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs p~r acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PW'-1/4 to Ex.P\V-1./] 0) which arc basicalty between one set: of co··'Jwncrs and Radha Swami Satsang, Beas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds 'l\.1\;:Jp. No. 1195/!008 & connected 1\pf.leals of Village Bharthal It\ 1\pp. No. ).'l·i/7.010 & conn<!Clt!d 1\ppeals of Village BiJWi:IS<Jn i ii.Apo No lll/20JO & conn0.cted Appeal; of Village Pocha'lpur (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1110) indicate that its price varies from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale I exemplars-, Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1110) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land m question, is lacking. Therefore, these saie exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur yide Sale Deeds (Ex.P·W--l/4 tc Ex.PW-1/10) has not been brought out! as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appe1lants. Had the purcl.1aser/vendee of the aforesaid sa)e exemplars been got examined, then it could have been I I elicited fi·om him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for # these lands. The special fancy of th1~ purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchased rnore than 33 Bighas of land at an l~Xorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale Deed executed on 25 l\1arch, 2000 was also subject matter in f .A. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh v~. Union of India, c!ecicled on 23.8.2011 and in Li\. App. I No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village •. M.amurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as represent~tive price for the acqu~rcd lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though 1bc land usc of the acquired lrmds was changed, much prior to tht~ir acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acqu~red lands were being used for agricultural purpose ti.ll their. acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands wer(:: not developed lands. No prudent person havin~ knowledge of prevailing 11\./\pp. No. 1.195/2008 & connected /1ppeals of Villap,e Bharthal

1./\./\pp. No. 294/2010 & r.onncctqd Appeals of Village Bijwasan t 1\./\pp. No. 11.1/2010 & conncrtqd Appeals of Village Pochanpur ! . I Page :!1 of 29 • • raarket price 6f 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 o~inion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.P\V-1/4 to Ex.PW-1110) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. I

¶28So far :as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1111) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, di~;closing exorbitant price of ~1,76,55, 172.~1 per acre relating to Sale Deed of 2t 11 January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale ex~mplar (Ex.PW-1 /11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex .P W -1 I 11 )! vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. T n view t!1ereof, this sale exemplar I cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question. t

¶29·Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly I situated lands· in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to vvhcthcr adoption of L& DO circular rates Cor the developed Jancb and Prc~Detcrmined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value or the acquired lands in question .

¶30Parameters governing fixation ~)f mark.~t value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision rcpr~rted asP. Ram Redl(J! and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development "1 uthority H);derabad and On.-., 1995 (:?.) SCC 305 arc as under:- , "12. !Rpvever, in either qf the said cases whether it be the determif?atiOf1 of the market vaiue of the acquired land with building pot'(!ntiality vvith ref'erence to the price fetched by sale c.:lplots in a welL developed La.yout in the neighborhood ; /\.!lpp No. :1] :"J:i/200~ & conner.te'd 1\ppr!als of Vi!lap,e Bhar! hal I r,_/\pp. Nc. /911f;!01.0 & connected AppP.ah of Village B1jwasan : 1\.1\pp. Nc. 1.1 1/i'O.lO 14 connected!/\ppcals of Village Por.hanpur .. I P"ec 22 r:;f 29 I or whet<her it be the determination of th<! market value ~f the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale Q[ building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to .find out what will be the price fetched~:or to be .fetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched {{sold on the date Qfthe publication of the preliminary not(fication under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence of price fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts Qf building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then vvh,at could be done is lo find out the market value ~f the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4fl) qf the LA Act, according to the actual '{1Se to which it HN1s put and increase its vahie by a small percentage having· regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed ]/5th Q[ the market value ql the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving .·ncreased value fc)r such lntilding potentia!iz-y arises only vvhen there is no evidence qf sales of building plots in the neighborhood qf the acquired land indicating that there. vvas no imnzediate de1nand, as such, for building plots even ({formed in the acquireq land. "

¶31In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the DDA after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La/ Chand (Slipra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment n:i.tcs/Prc-Detcrmined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold [anas. Following the dictum of La/ Chand (Supra), a coordinate Bench or 1his Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi/ [(umar (Supra) hm~ excluded 111e DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of 1 /'u\pp. No. 119!,nOo!l & connected Appeals of Villap,r. !lhartilal

1./\ 1\pp. I'Jo. /9~/ )() 10 & connect-ed Appeals of Villap,e Bijwasa:1 11\.flpp 1\io. J 11//010 & connected /\ppcals of Villap,<! Pochanpur --I-Per;c l3 of 29 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA' s Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question. Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase . method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-!. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of "!.0% 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-! and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-II, still the price fixed by the I "and Acc1uisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and there.fore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument docs not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La/ Chand (Supra), cam~oning the Courts to adopt progressive il1crcasc method in assessment of the market value or the • acquired land only when the gap is or 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even .if it relates to a neighbou:·ing land. What rnay be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, m~'!.Y become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notitlcations, i e.: of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka P'hase-II is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate IA/\pp. Nc. 11 'JJ/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhacthal IAI\pp. No. ?..::!4/1.010 & tonr.ected /\ppcals of V1llage IJijwasan

1.1\./\pp. No. 111/2()10 & connPcted /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur Page z.l of l9 • • esce!lation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation ~Y 10% per annum. After having p~rused the decision in Sushi/ Ku"far (Supra), I find that 1 0% mcrease on account of higher potentiality of the acql).ired !and over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushi/ Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court ~y 12% [.Jer annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of thL~ respondent arc dismissed .

¶35Now what is to be seen is \vhether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural Jand in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12~::o per annum granted by the Reference Com1 from the date of fixation of the minimllm price for the agricultural land by the Government w.c.f. 1 sr April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeab deserve~ to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's n;~mmum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellant~ because the acquired land bad ceased to be an agricultural land by virtue of ~otification of 24' 11 October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid No1ifi.cation ofthe year 1994 t.hc land use of the acquired land had changL~d but that by itself is not SL!fficicnt to I 11./\f.'p. No. 119S/20Cil & connECted /lppe;lis of Village Bharth;11 ill llf.Jf.J. No .. J.'lil/7.010 & wnnectr..d f,!Jpcals of Village Bijwasan :J\.1\pp. No. J l.l,';~o~.'J & cor.ncctc!d llppr.als of Village f>ochanpur . I l'ar,c 25 of 29 • • presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agri.cultural purpose. ...,7 .) .. Rather, it emerges fi·om the cvidenc~ on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 1\ct, I 894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand: on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their usc post the year J 994, then appellants could have laid their hands on o1:hcr sale instances in the area i.n question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale inslance of ViJlagc Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha S\vami Sarsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) arc comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Sama]\<ha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be sufficic~nl ground to grant higher compclisation whik relying upon the aforesaid .• sale instances. Therefore, in vicvv of the afore-referred dicturn of the Apex Court in Haryana State lndusu·ial Development Corporation (HSI D.(.} (Supra), uniform rate of c0mpcnsation deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notific-Hion in the light of tile minimum price fixed by the Goveniment for the agricultural land in Dc!hi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap bctV•/ecn what : .·\.flpp. No. 1.1.~7S/20'J8 & conneW!d flppcals of Village Bharthal I :,.flpp. No. 2~H/~Ol0 & conn~cwd .\ppe<Ji!: of Village Bijwasan l.\.1\pp. No. J 11/?0.10 & connecl!'d flu pea is of Village Pochanplll • • would be e~pected to be q1e market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai $ingh (Supra) as well as in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi/ Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court m the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Dell~i to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question . Finding of t~e Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out fi·om the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect' of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of t.he IGl Airport., lndian Oil and Bharat Petro.leum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village f.3harthal and there being a 100 me\.~rs vid:c road starting from NH-R from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm I louses i.n the vicinity of the acqui!·ed lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. ·Jn the considered opinion of this Court, on account or aforesaid l.ocational advanta.ges, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality bL~ing in vicinity of .Dv;arka Phase:-I. What persuades this Court to grant 1 IJfJ.,'(, increase over and above market. value of the acquired lands· as assessed by the Reference Courl on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquiJ:cd lands is the ! /, 1\~p. No. 11.9~/?008 & connc;c~ed /\ppe~ls of Viil~ge Bh;.rthal 1/\.flpp. No. 2'!4/2010 & connected flppe<~ls of Village Bijwasan I t •. l\pp. Nc: 111./I.OJO & connectt~d 1\ppe<ls of Village Pochanpur I. !'{lftP. i:.7 of 29 • settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext CoUii in Mirza Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possib,ility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the inunediate or near future, such conclusion would: be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶39Consiqering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation., it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them \Vith equivalence by uniformly applying th~ Government's minimum prices f<x the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands di1Tcrcntly and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur arc treated at par with thci'r counter-pmis, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, whik relying upon the decision in Sushi/ /(umar (Supra), I am inclined to grant l 0% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reicrcnce Coun 1n these matters on account of the :::i(J:·esaid locatiom~ I advarn~tges providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40J\ccordingly, these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding 1 0% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village BhatihaJ and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appcllc.mts ofVilhgc Pochanpur at par 'vith the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of 1 ·'· .1\pp No. Jl()~/7.008 & connected 1\ppeals of Vilbgc flhJrthal '.~./\pp. No. 7.9,1/;>010 & connected 1\ppcals of Village 13ijwasan . 1\.,\pp. No. U l;7.01C & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur !'age 2~ vf 29 the appellants of Village ·Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these \ 4::;:_L:.,. t_.,z_ . . . three villages in question is determined @ ~16,50,000/- per )Jigh~ -~o~ ~~f . ' ~>u;,c, .• · <';!- . Categ~ry '!\'._land and@ ~14,69,600/- per ~~=~--for the Category 'B' lands m question. , .. "~---{\ \'"--·' .:+ l. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in th~ judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOJ 2001 (93) DLT 569 arc granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for \\ hich period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the afores'aid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar CJencral o C this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. .January 06,2012 pkh i ;,./,pp. No. 11 'JS/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhartha! : /\.1\pp. No. 2'J4ii.010 & connected flppeals of Village Bijwasan h.flpp. No. 11.1/7.010 & connected flppeals of Village !'ochanpur (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE I·; • * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA ..... Appellant Througl~: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocato. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.,Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. v'ersus Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ' ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi I<iran, Advocates for LAC/UOI CORAM: Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of6 111 January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants Lave accepted the notice ~.e•·-·rtr LA.i\pp.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 ,: • of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The 'typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6th January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', \·Vbereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Acco>:dingly, this application is aJ lowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph ' no: 40 of 1A.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections pe carried out fortlnvith. In vje~.,. of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. .JANUARY 12,2012 pkb LJ\.App.No.1195/2008 .. ····-·· ':.:::y-=-·. .. - .. :.... ..... --·~'.::{SlJNIL GAUR) .JUDGE - - Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % LA.APP. 73112010 UOI & ANR Through: versus DEVENDER KUMAR Through: CORAM: Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 ..... Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOIILAC · Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. ..... Respondent 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) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR