Ram Chander & Anr v. UOI & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 Fororderssee LA.App.No.1195/2008,titledas 'RanhirSharmavs. Unionof India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb ^-(StMLGAUR) JUDGE IN THE HJGH COURT OF BEIJII AT OTCW DELHI ^^I'o'iouncedon; ,/fmugrv 0(i 2012 (GRID-y\) I , LA.y\PP.1195/2008(VILLAGE-EH.A.RTHAL) RANBJR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmilMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.H.SA'erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates iVIr.AnandYadav and Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rouiand iVh-.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari. Advocate.s. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav. Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhosla and Mr.I^JhananjayMchlawat, Advocates Mr.Il.S.Mautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi. Advocale. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mril.S.Ranlela,(Advocaiesiur respondentin appeals Hied by (JOI) versus IJNIONO!-INDIA& ANR. Respondcnrs' Ihroiigli; Mr.SanjayPoddar,Si.^niorAdA'otratewith Mr.Saajav Pathak,M.r.lVlo.iutrao.Vadhavand M.s'.Nav),inouain. Ms.K.KaumiidiKiran. Advocatesforl AC/UOI Mr.AjayVen]?a.Ms.BecnashawSorii. Mr.Mukcsh Kumar, Mr S.'K.Selhi.Mi'.Pav/anIvlatlinr,IVlr.Kunal Sliarn-)H.Advocate for [)DA l.A.Ai'p,4]2,2008& CM.No,4096/2U0S (Cross-Objections),i.^ APP ^.A.A]'P.453/2008;LA.AP!>.588/2()G8^ C;\lNo.5W0/2()10 (Cross-Obiedions); i.A.Ar'P.(>97/2008& CM.No.433/2(X>'i'(C'ross-Objcctions);l.A.APP.7()i/20':}8& CMNo.510/2009 (Cross-Oi:Meci:ioQ:;i: !" V.APP 768/2008; 1-.A..A!M\77(V2008^ i/ ./V-T-V n'J.Vr;008& connocled/^ppnalsofviMiigf;Bh;ir|.li:ii : No. /9/!/?OlOS ajniicd.sdAppc-jisofVilla,?!;Bii.jvjiion iA.Anp. I'-, 1J3/?030&connmcdAppeaiiof Viltegff-othanoiir oi 1-3 ••4 • LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/200?' (Cross-Obioctions); 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 & ClVl.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.8i8/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; . ' LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.83'0/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); • LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA,APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objekons); j.A.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; .. LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.'519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; • LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/20()8 & CM.No.572,/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA. APP.993/2008;LA. APP. 1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.103;i/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) l-A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008 , 1..A.APP. 1047/2008;LA. APP. 1048/2008& CiViNo.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);LyV.APP.1052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP..l054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/20.11 (Cross-O.bjeciions); LA.APP.i058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 , (Cioss-Objections);LAx.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections); • LA.APP.i060/2008;LA.APP.1062,/2008& CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.-623/2009(Cross-Objections);

1...A.APP.1075/2008.; LA.APP.ldSl.aOO.'? & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); I..A.APP.1084/2008&' CM.No.17302/2008;(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086;'2008 .& CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections);'L/\..APP.]087/2008& CM.No.6]9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.A.PP.1095/2008; LA.APP.] 103,/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.] 109/2(308; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objection.s)iLA ..APP.]113/2008 & CM.]\\-).3826/2009 (Cross-Oi3jections); LA.APP.111:.5/2008; .[..A.APP.11 ]6/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008; i.A.APP.]126/2008; LA.APP.]]kV2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM:I\o.566/2009(Cross-Ol^iections): I.A.APP.1133/2008;LA.APP.il35,/2008& CM.No;7442/2009(Cross-Objeciions); l-A.APP.l137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.]140/2008; I.A.APP.1156/2008;LA.APP.1]^7/2008;LA.APP.]158/2008& ClVI.No.7774./2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l15'9/2008; LA.APP.1161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008;

1..A.APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l]71,/2008;LA.APP.l]"72/2008; LA.APP.l]73/2008;

1...A:A.PP.1175/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; LA.APP.1179/2008; LA.APP 1181/2008- ; 1.A.APP.1182/2008;LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6.933./2009(Cross-Objections),' • -LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.l1S5/200S; LA.APP.!186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 (.(X.App. No U95/2008& connectedAppsal.sofVillageBharthal • , ' • i.A ApD. No.7..91/7.Q.10 connuctedAppeaLsofVillage Bijv.;3S3n ' ' LA.App. f-Jo. connnclec)Appeal,sof ViliagoPochaiiDur'' " ' ' l^age'2or29 % (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP.117O/2OO8; LA.A.PP.l191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008; LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; LA.APP.1198/2008& .CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008; LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008;.LA.APP.1210/2'008;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.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39,/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No;746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.7] 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP-.121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; •LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objcctions); LA.,A,PP.211/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.A]'P.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; l.A.APP.507/2009; •LA.APP.511/2009; l:A.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.A.PP.203/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.208/2009' & LA.APP.210/2009 & ' CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.y\PP.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.l'5/2010; LA.APP,13,/2011; L,A.APP.295/2009; ]-.A.AP?.447,''2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509,/2009: LA.APP.513/2009: LA.APP.45/2010; i.A.APP. 1138/2008. LA.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; T.A.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP.201/2009; CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; LA.APP.45 8/2009; LA.APP.481/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.506/2009; LA.APP.510/2009; LA.APP.567/2009; LA.APP.48/2010; LA.APP. 1176/2008; (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of thd Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.200^ VillageBharthal,-Delhi) (GRID-B) LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAG DJ^VHNJ^BR KUMAR Throueii: Reserved on: December 08. 20! I Pronounced on: Jamiarv 06. 2012 '..... Appellant .Mr.R.S, rojiiar, Mr.Virendra Singh l/i.App.Mo :l.a9;j/.!00S& coiinecl.c>clAppealsofVilkigc? fJhnrllial 'A.App. No. 294/2010&connpcUidAppnaLsof VillageBijwasan lA.App No. ].Ll/?.OiO&connuctc.'dAppfial,'-ofVillage Pochanpu.' T Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates for appellant (inR-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR Respondents Through; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadha\-, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates tor DOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K, Routray,Advocates in appeals • filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, '7] : & 72 in appeal filed by UOl ; Mr.Baakey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal ShariTiaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 r.-A.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 L.A.APP. ]00/2010 LA.APP. 211/2010 J-A.APP.242/2010 LA.APP.246/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP.295/2010 LA.APP.2516/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 35].'20i0 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010- ' r.A.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 L.A.APP.405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 43'8/2010 LA.APP-.723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP, 729/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP.759/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP.28672010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP,75/2010& C.M.No.964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA..APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP: 348/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP'. 760/2010 LA..APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 l.A.APP,

725./2010 LA,APP, 73L/2010 LA,APP, 764/2010 LA,APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 ross-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.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. & 51/2010 55,'20]0 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. 10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 2(^2002-2003,VillageBijwasaiijDelhi) AND ' I.A.^pp..^)o .liy5/-2008&conneanclAppealsofVillageBharllin! W.App. No. &connticlGdAppealsofVillageBijwasaii ;.A.App.|\|0. •ni/;)0l.0&connncU'dAppealsoT VillagePochanpur . l-agc! 4 of 29 •% (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012' A.AFP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D, Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor 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,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64" 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant iji 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 LIQl/LAC Mr..BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.Somer.K.Seth,Advocates for DDA: LA.APP. 111/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 254/2010 LA.APP. 292/2010 a^.AP1^07/9mn^ , la.APP: 395/2010 ^^Tml¥=OT2UT0 LA.APP. 466/2010 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010 LA.APP. 9.19/2010 LA.APP. 65/2011 LA.APP. 120/2011 l.A.APP, 476/2011 LA.APP. 523/2011 LA.APP. 536/201]' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA^P. 'LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010. 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 • '662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 • -App. No, 1.19b/?.008&conncctRdAppealsof VillafieBharthal A.^pd.No. mnow&conriGclodAppealsofVillageBIjwasan ' l-A.App iMo connectedAppealsofVillagcPochanpur LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. •LA.APP. l-A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 1A.A.PP. LA..A.PP. LA.APP. LA.A.PP. la.,APP. LA.APP:. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 117/2011 129/201! 521/20] I 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. !"A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434,/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011

429./2011

522./2011 535/201 PlSRc 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. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE SUNIL CiAUR' O R P E R %

06.01.200

¶1Since the grounds on which enhanceraentof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresent at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NolificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated13.12.2000,relating to ..geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and }ochanpuiare beingdisposed,ol by this commonorder. Acquisitionproccss for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPha.se- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Noti/ication of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, pcrtaniing to vast tract of agricuhiiral land in one compact block ... comprisingof thirteen Revenue Kslates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. , Agiiculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respo'.identsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Av/arci No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward •No-30/2002-2003grtoting compensation@?13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A^ (level field -- with top soil) and @?12.32.]acsper acre Ibr Block'B'(withoutop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedv/iththe assessmentofmarketvalueoftheii'acquired LA.App. Wo. ll'jy/i'OOS&conno!ctGdAppeals.ofVillageBh.-)rth=l. lA.App, No. Z9'V?.0.10& conrKJctedAppealsofViliageBijwasan ' ' I.A.App. No. 11 ^/JO.IO&connecfKdAppealsof VillsfiePochsnpur ?npui i'agn 6 ol, 29 / agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced coilipensation @ ? 15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ^"13.36 lacs per acrc 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 in Executive Engineer, •Karnataka Homing Board'vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu.Dessai ra. State ofGoa and Ann,

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

(2010) 1 see 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 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil .(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of 'Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SeALIi 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab Ors., 201'! (9) SCALE 362; Avinash DhavdjiNaiscvs.State of Maharashtra, (2009) ; 11 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of 'Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W",P.(C) No. 4143/2003titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Grs, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7SuC 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibkaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, 'A App, No. .l.l!?;j/?008a conn(!ct(!dAppnalsofVillugeSliarthal .:,A.App.No. 7.94/?.0.10& connHcUidAppeaLsofVillaRG Bijwasan •A.App. No in/20.1.0&connnctndAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • ' , Pape7of ?,9 II Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15-RisalSingh & Ors. UnionofIndia& Anr., 200,6 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009)'15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and • Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValUyantmaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; liapil Mehra (Major Generid) & Ors. Union ofIndia & Anr, .176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(G) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om 'Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,•(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal &. Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SuskilKmmr vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

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

(170) DLT 371. stiengthof the aibrcsaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maaii,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the loeationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to' appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the ai-ea overaperiod of time and the samecannotbo limitedto the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.J(.S;romar,counsel for appellantsthat 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 railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi UVAOP. NO. li;);V2003&connectedAppealsof VillageBh.rth.i ' ' |A.App.Mo. 29V2010&conn.cledAppealsof Villageliijwasnn •A.App. No. i.l..l/20:1.0S connectedAppealsofVillagt!PochanpiK ' 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 Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal^Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel 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 establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Fetioleum and the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the westernside of VillagesBam.noliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the developmenl of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks, sizras/m^dto highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

8.-' It 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 tliree Villages in question was changed from agricultural' to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and.infactthe entire land ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24^' October,1994,

¶9It v/as argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. IA.App. Mo, l.i95/;^.00«fi connnctsdAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp..No.294/;!0;i0&connscU'cAppfialsof VillagG Bijwasan . • :-A.App.No. 111/201.0&connGclfdAppealsof ViliaBcPochanpur • PaBC!9of:29 ;3 Seddi& Ors. vs. LandAcqumtionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ora, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Oass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE • 41 holding that the potentialof the acquired land must be adjudged keepingin view the developmentin the .area over aperiodof time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it would not mean thatthereis no buildingpotentiality. i0. Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deedsof VillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and n,erely because of the said variation,these sale exemplarscannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to conclude,that these sale exemplarsare overvalued becauseof any spceial advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Courtin AnjamMoluDesmiStateofG«a andAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710,the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as .epiesentingthe inarketprice of the land which comes to ?57 •lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellairls arc the comparable'sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupontlieminimumrates/circlerates tordetenniningthe • raarlcetvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous. " ' 11• Assessmentofmarketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.(iodara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe i,& 00 rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the;Governmentfor-allotmentof alternate plots .he yeai-2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand P"c"ual,tyof the acquiredland, determinationof its market value i, ^PP Nc,nj,,c,lQ&connncledAppoalsofVillagcPochanpuf ' . Page 10 ol 29 )1 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 Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Dctermined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugned judgmenton the following grounds:- a) "Ignores the acknoyvledgeinenton the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated y3.]0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Jfril petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred, to in cross-examinationof appellani dated

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the faci 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. AcquisHionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby tiie GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid doM'n by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of \the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in SangunthalaversiLsTdhsildar.2010(3)see 661. ' d) Ignores the evidence^and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunder.acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the'law esta.blish.edby the Hon'bleSu.prem.eCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special L-and AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin l-A.App.No. J19V:i008&connucifidAppealsof Villageliharthal ' l/V-App, No. ,?94/:?010&conncctfldAppealsof Villageliijwasan ii">.App.No. 1..U/2010&conneclGdAppealsof VillagePocfianDiir ' • : • • Page H of 29 case the average sale price is lower. Further in An]ana. 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 of sales-, transactions ' should be considered, while adjudicating upon compensation upon a. certan land. f) Relied upon judginent dated

3.3.2008 in LAC, No.97A/2006to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate tha.t the ma.rketvalue 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 km' 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 •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007.\ g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although, vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 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. The masterplan and Notifications of Governmentfor land, use change show that in future land, can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectof the 74"' amendment' of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f :>1.6.1993 IX A. by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area, where the land is situated, M>as • • deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor , was elected from, there.. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR. Sviprem.e Court 3467, Ranvir Swigh and .Anr vs. Union of ln.d.ia and refusedto considerthefoctthai the developmentin •the area has a direct-^ effect on the price that a willing purchaserwouldpay'forthe.subjectland. 0 Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also I.A.App. No. 1195/2008&connoclGdAppealsofVillagRBharthal i I.A.App. Mo. 2M/;'.010& connactedAppealsofVillage Bijwa.san LA.App. No. lll/20in&conncctndAppealsofVillagePochanpur cf 29 ouctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks • • at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land, was acquiredfor - development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. 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 of Delhi State. I), IgnoredNotificationsdated ]6.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial • potentialityof the said land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was heldthat the purposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acqvdred the fact whetherthe landhasgot 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 aportionoj the land,is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof beingput in betteruse as housesitesin the nearfuture." 1j. In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. . j47/2009,the factual details have been providedwith aprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par witli the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof App. No, .1195,7008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No..794/2010&connectedAppealsof yinagGBIjwassn • I.A.App. No. ]11/^0108, connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur urbanizationof the lands in, the Villagesin question,i.e., the change,in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar fs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMekra (Major Genera!) Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Deterniined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the 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 ol the acquired lands. Ihus, enhancement of compensation •rcfleeting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Foddar,learnedSeniorCounselurged thatthoughas per Section51 -A of I Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the,samecannot be taken as relevantevidence ibr determinationof the m^arket value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other lectorsnamely,nature, situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the RelerenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRl 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Cham! vs/j/nionofIndia ami Anr.,

(2009),15SCC 769: LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SmhUKumar vs. •Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09,2011,it was urged that shaip increase iri price in ashortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons ibr such sharp increase are explainedby producingin evidence the seller LA,App No. 11^35/2008&connected/Appealsof VillageBharthal lV\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan Ij^.App.No. ll.l/.-'.OlO&connectedAppealsof ViliapcPochanpur i'a{!0 14 of 29 and the purchaseras no prudentperson havmg knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendmthe marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of RadhaSwami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special.consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court mLai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a V cooidmateBenchofthis Courtin Su^hilKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality^of the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, leai'ned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativepriceoflheagriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1 Apiil, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of tlic acquired latids has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in . Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, Uie impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RoJcrencoCourt:whiletalcmgintoconsiderationthe appreciation(ill 12% per annum and the same deserves (o be brought in line while granting appreciation @10% per annum aiul thereby allowing the cros.s" objectionsto the aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon , recordandthe decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue 01 the comparablelandis thep.ricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling • VAloa connc!a(:rJAppealso[Vi|lagePoch;ir,pur' Pafir; 15 ofZf) \dl 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 & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cit}' or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation ;

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

(iii) possibilityof obtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupantsof buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using theacquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

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

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acciuired.land which m.ay become availableto the occupiersof buildings,if builton the acquired land; and

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

¶18Ihe potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large numberof factors. For the said puiposc, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose lor IA.App. No, 1195/7.008& connojclGdAppealsofVillageBhurthal LA.App. Mo ?..'W/2010a conncctodAppealsofVillage IBijwassn LA.App. No. 113/2010&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' I' 16 f29 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 acquiredilands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsof-smallpieces of land rehed 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& Anr vs. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on bcihall of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialilv of the villages, which are similariy situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards tuture prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon-thegroundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land. ^0. It is a well established proposition ot law that the burden of proving the true market value,ofthe acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land lor a particularpurpose. But, it is equally tiue that the burden o;t proving inadequacy of compensatioij awaiaed is on the claunant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Couriin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referedto vvith advantage. -1. Apex Court in Valliyamma! (Sup)-a).while takingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated'in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper, 'ihe pcrttnenl observations,made by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoSu Dessai(Supra) deserveattention,which are as under:- Li.App. K'O. j1.55/2008&corinacVRdAppealsof VillageBharthal ly,V.App.iVo. ?.;m/7010&conncctcdAppealsof VillageBijwasari lAApp.iNo.l.Tl/Kno&connectedAppealsof Villagef^ochanpur M On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is fasten 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 inhere 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 marker, 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 .onlyaroundhalfofit,\thatis about5% to 7.5%per annum.. This rule of thumb 'refers to the i^eneral 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 increaseto be appliedwould dependupon• the same. Normally, recourseisifaken to the mode of determiningthe market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved,market value of nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactions or acquisitionsofcompar'ablelands in theneighbourhood.The said method is reaspnahly safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitidnsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour to-fiveyears. .Beyond that it may be unsafe,\even 'ifit relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable.nandardifthe gap is only a few years, may becoine unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determiningthe m.a.rket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with' reference to a sale or i.A.App.Mo. ii95/200f? connocisdAppaalsofVillageBharthal !.A,Apo.rjo. "'.'J'l/ZOlO& connnctedAppealsofVillageEiiwasan LA.Apo Wo. .11.1/vo.lO&connectcdAppaaLsofVillageFocnatipMr Page :l9ol 29 7^ "The legal position is that even M>here there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandM'idth, •; the average thereof cUn be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of ; ' t-wo sales are markedly different,, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are ^pth referenceto dissimilarlands or -that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons, Consequently averaging \ cannot be resorted, to. "I

¶22It-would be worthwhile ;to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands raade by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakh-a Patil (Supra), which are as . follows '7/ is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land, under acquisition or in its absence the bonafi.d.e sale transactionsproximate 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 reasonableprudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to 1 determinethe marketvalue." 2}. • Principlesto determinethe market vakje of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd, I {"(OTVG'Q(Supra), are as under:!- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature-of development in surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin , the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural | areas unless there is aiiy prospectof developmentin the , vicinity, increase in pi:ices would be slow, steady and <•. gradual,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. ' 1A.App. No.:195/2008& cojinocledAppealsofVillage3harlMall i-A.App. No. 294/2010& connfictedAppealsofVillagGBiiwasan ' l-A.App.No. in/2010a connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 18 of 29 ' acquisitionin 1970or ^980 mayhave manypitfalls. This is because, over the coupe of years, the Vate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drasticchange apart from, the ' likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurts\inpricesaffectingthe verystandard \ ofincrease. " \ j

¶24This Court-is mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Haiyana StateindustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative'salesmethods-.What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as"under:- i "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different siiuationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming oj d residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthesame notification." ^5. IJndisputedly,in these; appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal,, Village Bijwasan of the .period in questionare not availableandjthesolitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of:VillagePochanpur. i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinfltitution,i.e., Radha SM>amiSdtsangBeas had puiehased the agriculturalland in .Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from^52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Ipced.s(Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/]0) which are basicallybetweenone set pf co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beasmrespectofthe compact[blockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarket.valueof the landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required^ to.be answered. Evidently,aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e.;Sale Deeds,' W.App. No. 1,195/2008&conriGctod^ppt:alsof VillageBharthal I i.A.App.No. 25-1/20.10&conncctcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' LA.App. No. U,1/2010&connoctfidAppealsof VillagePochanpur' ' ' Page.20 of 29 ' 1/1 (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ^'52 lacs to X62 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.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale•exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale 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-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appejlanis.Had the purcl.iaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, dien it could have been elicited Irom him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swaini Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village,Mamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon'25"' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin 1A. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siiigh vs. Unioft of India, decided on

19.9.20il and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be (]-ea.ted as representativeprice for the acquiredlands, .27, In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuch priorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used foi' agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, ifbecomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailijig I.A.App.No. 1J9V2008&connectedAppealsof VillageHharthal ' • W.App. No. 294/2010&connectodAppealsof VillageBijwasan m.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagaPochanpur Pngfl :il of 29 t market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the , considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (ltx.PW-1/4 to Iix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11) •relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-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 structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in quesLion.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionot L& DO circularrates for the developed lands and Pre-DcterminedRates 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 acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas F. Ram Reddyand Ors. V, Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as undcr:-

¶12IJowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination,ofthe marketvalueofthe acqtiiredland,with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ojplotsin a well developedlayoutIn the neighborhood IA.App. Nc. :i.TJ:i/Z008& i:onnGr.t(?dAppoalsofViliage BharUial I.A.App.Nc. 'mfmiQ a connoctedAppRalsofVillage:Biiwasan IA.App. Nc:. l.n/V.O,I.O&connectedAppnalsofVillagePochanpiir PiiRc 22 of 29 orwhetherithe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby sale,ofbuildingplots in 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 oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section of the Act. Further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhood,of the acquired-glands 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) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to yvhich'it 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 l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user •since resort to the method ofgiving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales oj buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland, indicatingthat there was no iiwnediate d.em.a.nd, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶01In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringtlie agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights,,the Apex Court,in La! Chand (Supra),hold that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in detemiining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lanas. Following the dictum of La! Lhand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded tlie DDA rates qua the developedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessingtlie marketvalue of ;A.App.No;.ncj|>/?.008&connmndAppealsof VillaBc,.Bharths! ' I '.A.App.NO. I.Q &connoctodAppealsof Vlllago!BIjwasan A.App. No, :11/2010a c0nnc!clc!dAppealsof VillaBePnchanpur Pnfie ZH of 29 • the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, 1 find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsinquestion.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-L It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seniorcounsel for the respondcnt/cross-objectorthat even ifthe . escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the ycai 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., lor the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,sfillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of •the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt pi-ogressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland'onlywhen the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phasc-I and Dwarka P!iasc-IIis ot sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate l./\.App.Mc;. n9b/2008&connoctedAppealsof Village!Bha.-thiil LA.App. No. P.a'i/WlO&connocledAppnalsof VillageBIjwasan : l-A.App, No. Hl/2010&connnctedAppealsof VillagePoc;hanpi;r Page 2'l of Z9 escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearb}^land ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar^ learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector.had urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted .-escalation@ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I i^nd 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 i . ^ @12% per annumcannotbje reducedto 10% per annum.In this viewof ,the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed. I

¶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% per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixation'ofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. 1'^ April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sroinimura rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificatipr,in question^has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecauscthe acquired land had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtxie of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declai-ing agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It i., t,-uethatvide aforesaidNQfificationofthe year 1994 the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not.sufficientto IA.App. No.].T95/20C8& connected/vppe.-ilsofVlllagt!Bharthni ' AApp. No. mumo&conncclndAppealsofVillageBljwasa'n lAApD. No. 31..1,20.1.0&conneclfidAppealsofVillage.I'ochaninir l-age 25 of 29 presume that the acquired lands.had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there beingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsofRadkx Swami Satsang,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat tlie sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.•

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agrieuituraluse. Had there been increasein price due to higlterdemand,on accoumofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid their hands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Poehanpui-to areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to • establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsof7Wfe, SM'aim Satsang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-!/l1) are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Hx. PW-1/1!) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances.Therefore, in view of the aforc-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Baryana State indmtnal DevelopmentCorporation rnsmc)(Supra),unifo.™rate'ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded lor the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Oelhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher' potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what of VillagePochanpur • Pa3e26of;!9 3' )vould be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimumagriculturalprice has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as inSmhil Kumar (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 Siishil Kumar (Supra).

¶38Hiis 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. iMndingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof i:he IGT Airport,Indian Oil ajid Bharat PeiroleumDepots and ofRailway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part11, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity ol the acquiredlands has somehow missed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt.'Inthe conskleredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aloiesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhasc-I. What persuadesthis Courtto grant iO%.increaseover and above market value of the acquired lands;as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the I !A App. No. 1191/2008&connnctedAppealsofVillageBharthal iy\.App.|\Ju. 294/2010&corinpclodAppealsof VillageBijv^asan lA.App. Nc).-lll/?,010&connectedAppealsof VillagG Poclianpur ' • l'agn27of29 ' • ' p settled legal position aptly,highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza jycutsherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1.SCC238, in thesewords:- ' " When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a ui dingpotentialityand proceed,to determine its market valuetakinginto acco'mtthe increasein priceattributable tosuch buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fa6t that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,;and in.viewof the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe insttotcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of ihe acquiredlands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-paits,:i.e.;- appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, white relying upon the'decisionin Smhil Kumar(Supra),Iam inciinedltogi-ani 10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCoun in ; these matters on account of tlie aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpoklialityin the acquiredlandsin question.'

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are,partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverai^d above the marketvalueassessedby the' RofereneeCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bharthaland Village J5i,wasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochaitpurat parwith the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof PP.. ^O. 1...V20.10&connnctodAppealsofVillagePochanpur PaKa 23 of 29 ^' , ihe appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent mdjcated above. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these three villagesin qiiestionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^i^rforthe • Category 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per fjipha for the Category'B' lands in question. ^ I I 4]. On the aforesaid enhpcement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Dand AcquisitionAct,. 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Siinder vs\ UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are gianted,exceptfor the periodIwfierethere is adelayin filingthe appeal, • ior which periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappeliantswouldbe entitledto.proportionatecosts.

¶42• Tlie above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms withjdirection to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eithersidewith the Registrar General ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb V.App. No. 1195/2008&connnclodAppealsofVillageBharthal i /..App.No, 2.M/Z010&connectedAppealsofVi!lagG3IJwasan I Ia.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVlllaeePochanpurI .J-JHj r: : • o I •]! ^ • I {ol ' THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tbmar, Advocate. •Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S..Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mi'.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby 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.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,^4i-..MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, • Mr.BanlceyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somber K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. •C01U.M; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.0L2012 , C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof6"'Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 ir'-t b' . oftlie application.Advancecopyoftliis applicationhas alreadybeen .givento reinainingcounsel'forthe appellanjs. Tlie typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'" Januaiy, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of tlie aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per.bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'; This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordirrgly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1)95/2008be read as 'per acre'. Neces:«,y j-'oi.iectionsbe carriedout forthwith. •In \je\v 61, the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof V JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb -'A.App:No.1195/2008 Page 2

% + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 395/2010 RAM GRANDER & ANR Thi-ough: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Mr.B.D. Sharma,' Mr.S.K.Solanld 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) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR