Gokal Chand v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm . •?\ :/ ^ / -r- .7^- . • . -'i-1-' • •.- f * % +. IN THE HIGH COUI^ OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI - ludamentReservedOn: Anaust 2011 , JudgmentDeliveredOn:, Sfiptember.2011 LA.APP. 999/2010 & V \ CM NG.6549/20il(Cross-Ol^ectidn) ^^ .../ Appellant . Through: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate , , fVinlDe^pakKhosla;Adv ,• Ms. \ •' . • UGI .& anc^ER J : RespoKdents Through: M|r.SanjayPoddar/SeniorAdv4catfe- • &iMr.SanjayKumar Pathak/ife • V . . J^fwani, Mr-SiddharthParnda aild Ms.K Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates /and - , ; ; /u 951/2010, . LA.APP. 1001/2010 /& CM 1007/2010 & CM No:i5181/2011 ' nn'-^ 1009/2010,1 LA.APP. lOld/2010, 'lA.APp' ^ CM.No.12865/2.011,LA./\PP;5/2011,1A!aPp' ' •^0-6756/2011, LA.APP. 38^01l/^^& CM LA.APP.|41/2011,;LA.APP. 89/2011,'LA.APP-ffo/on ' LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2011;'sL/i.APP 1^63/2011 LA.APP. 246|/2pil, LA.APP. 247/2fill'IlAAPP ?7R/?nT 298/2011, LA.APP. 347/201l', LA.APP 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011, LA.APP. 38^7/2it)irM^Pp' LA.APP.:4|I;2^1::P^^^, Relating 4;dated 15.09.Mm & ' AwardNo. 06/2002-200p,:Village-BhalswaJahangirriurij // AND LA.App.No;999/201Q&connectedmatters' .a?aeer6f22' ' •' , i V • : i r ;."V> ; •• •• • r-- , •' u / T. I " + LA;APP. 57/2011 & CM\]Nlo.l2871/20li; LA.APP. 88/201.1 LA.APP.. 130/2011, LA;APP^ 132/2011, LA.APP. 164/2011,, LA.APP., 200/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, LA,APP. 240/20il, LA.APP, 241/2011, LA.APP. 242^011,, LAiAPP. 243/2011, LA.APP. L4.AP&<-^45/2011, LA.APP. -323/2011, "^•APP-346/2Q11Jla:APP.348/2 &CM K!od:5i94/2011, ;.APP.349/2011&CM No.l5182/20ll; LA.APP;373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP.; 380/2011, LA.APP. •382/2011, LA.APP. 393/2011,. LA.APP. 398/201.1, LA.APP. 399/2011> LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011 LA.APP; 410/2011,, LA.APP.414/2011.; ^ (derating to Notificatioji u/See. 4 dated 30.07:;1998 ' .;f . ^Awar^iNo.18/20d0-2Q0:i,Vitjage-Blri9few:^|^h|p0Fff^^C , t|3RAM,--' ,.'X' WON'BLE Mf^. JUSTICEPRADEEPNANPF^IC!^ ^

¶1Wihetherthe Reporters"oflocal papersmay be aitow.ed. • -to;see the judgment? ,

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not;? . •

3., Wihetherthe judgment'should be reported:in the •' , Digest?;, , ; , •' ' : PRADEEP NANDRAIQG.i: ; - J sn-apologyto the readerby referringto a _ . ' ndtifiGatibn: iss;ued later' in point of ..time gnd tijien to a '' . , ^notificationissued.priorin point oftime; but the'reason is that •• ; , the learned, counsel for.; the land owners had addressed . ^ v\^'th resp,ect.,tothe notificatibn issued later and had . . 1 requii^ed, price to be suitably reduced pertaining,to the, \ , •; ^ inotificatrpnwhich was issuedearlierin pointoftime.

¶2.Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue ' ®,h3lswaJahangirPurl was acquired'pursuant . , LAApp.N6.999/2010&connected Vpage.2of22 ' •• to a notifiGation dated 15,09.2000 issued under Section 4 of ; the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followe.d by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition ,0^ announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, whereby he-assessed the fair market, value of the acquired, land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equiyalent to ?13.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed; at ?13.82 lakhs per acre. • ; . , " ;

¶3Dissatisfied .:with the assessment made" by. the Land Acquisition Collector, th^ :land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The :Learned Reference:Court, in the lead matter, being. LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled /?^/ 5//7<7/7 Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value. pf the acquired land at ^3,03,534^ per bigha or ^4,56,963 per acre:' .

4.; • It needs to. be highlighted that both i.e. the leabhed Land •AcquisitionCo.ilectoras^ well as the Learned Reference Court,: •while assessing the fair market va.lue;of the' acdui'-ed latidv adopted the-mjnimum. price,for agricultural land fixed by the ' Governinent as on 01.04.2000, notified vide Circuiar dated;

11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as , the learned. Land Acquisition Coliector, while assessing the compensation, did not grant appreciation for the period from

01.04.2000 till the date notificatipn under Section 4 of the L^nd Acquisition -Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 c^ays @12% per annum with reference to the • base date .1.4.2000 and the price ?13.82 "lakhsp'er acre; LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected'matters ,Page 3 of 22; -h ,5. Another parcel Of land -ad-measuring: 929-05 bigha, . situated in the: same,: revenue estate;of'^village•Bhalsv^a ; ; JahangJr Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification•issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated for the same :public purpose,ile.; ^Reliteilitatiohof : . ; ' JJ Cluster'. This was followed by-a declaratioh:(under.Sectibn'5 . y^; of the Act issued.on 04.08.1998. After foUbwin^,the duV -process, the Land Acquisition Cbllectdrannounced;an award .'V bearing No.l8/2000-pi dated 12.03.200l', Whereby he .-assessed the, fair niarket valu6 of the acquired land at' : :^2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalentto ^11.2:0.la'k^ per , ,/ ,a'cre.-:' ^ " '•/ . ' , ^'^•ssatisfied' with, the .a'ssessmenf:made by,,the^Land' AcquisitionGollector,the. land owners sought referenceunder , , Section 18 of t:he Act. .Tire Learned Reference Court, in the ^ . lead matter being, LAC No.ll.lA/2Q08titled Chaiidrawatr^ . ,; , ; Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair marl<etvalue of the acquired : y . ' land at :m,46,670/-per acre. ' The difference;in ihe^ destination .reached .is on the same reason^ as -noted hereinabovepertainingto the notificationdated 15.9.200Qi.e. Land AcquisitionCollectoradopting the'land rate , , notified by the Government with effect from 1.4.1:997 vide circulardated 25.7.1997and fgnoring that the notificationIn question was issued on 3C)'.7.19.98and the learned Reference '. . • Court granting enhancement: ii% per ahnUm for the ^ interregnum period. , " ' ^ . :1. The Union of India as well, as; the land :owners,have Vchallenged the assessmentmade by .the Learned.feference^^ ' LA.App.No.999/2010&conne.cted.niatters • : , , Page4of22 •, Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned abQve. , • •• '• • • ' • -

¶8On* behalf, of the land %owners; justifying higher compensation, .reliance', was. placed on the fdllpwihg .documentary,evidence:- ^ ; •'' • " ':• , (a) The rate nbtified by the L&DO vide .notification • '^dated :i:6.04,199:9 (Exhibit. PW-4/1), whereby it. -^ , . ,. .disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase in ; ' respect of developed residential and commercial, properties, . owned ; by L&DO. Relying : on this , - , -document; it,was argued that in the year 1999, the '; rate of residential-land in Azadpur, which, is stated to be close to village BhalaswaJahangir Pun, was fixed -\ at ?5830/r per square meter or ?2,35,92,400.9;2per acre and it was urged that if bo% -is deducted . : towards deyelopmerit cost, the land own.ers should / be entitled, to enhanced compensation'm sum of .' . ?1,17,96,200/-per acre. .r^

(b) The rate ,charged by ;MCD,.for ail^Dtment of co|mmercial plot'in.Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, iii . • te:rms of the Resolution Nb.705 .dated 23.1'1:19B7 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot , , ... developed plots to, the-transporters "(g) t425/- per " square meter and '^hibit PW-3/2, a copy pf the Resolution'IM^o.6,10:dated 2i;02.2005, whereby:MCD , ; . 'decidedto allot:th;eplots in Sanjay Gandhi,Transport Nagar @?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be . material and goOd evidence. Relying;0n these . LA.App.No.999/201,0 & connected matters. .' Page 5.of22 . documents, learned counsel for . the land owners argued that the .'rate stated in the resolutions ;• laforenoted, which >was applicable for the year 1976,. v :^ould evidence that fair marl<et value of'developed i 'land comesto ^17,19,857/-per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of.the development costs, for undeveloped .lands, fair ' , market value would come to t8,59,928/- per acre In the year 1976 and increasingthe same ^y 12% per ;. •atjinum,the fair market value as of 15.9.200Qwould be ?24,76,592/-. per acre. .

(c) Learned counsel for the land owners also /placed reliance on the auction record of plots in ; Rohihi Residential'Scheme.ih the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and-PW-8/3). While.relying ; - pn the brochure of pD/^ pertaining to the;year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square - rhetre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri-vata .price • ranging, between ^23.72 lakh to ;^28.4 lakh, which V according te learned.cQunsertranslates to.a price of ^1436,36,3;63 per acre and counsel urged-that suitable deduction could be effectecl jther^rom / ' pertaining to undeveloped agricultural landv, ~ , v

(d) Relying,on a safe deed ._of village Kh^ra Khurd , •(Exhrbit PVV-lS/l),.whereunder land measuring 2-19' bigha was sold @ .?32,40'300/- oh; 25!04.2601, learned counser urged that the price per acre comes to ^^56,93,163/- or fll,86,169/- per bigha. It was tA.App.No•999/2010 &coimectedmatters . ' Page6of22 ' ? Gontendedjthat this sale de^d should be reliedbpori, ' after making a reasohal|)le deduction towards c^evelopnieht cost to determfhe the fair market value •: - . of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa • Jahangir Puri. Another-sale deed dated •24.03.2000 . ; (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16' bigha Tsituated in. the revenue estate. of ;^illage ^ " •' Mamurpurwas soldto Radha Swami Satsahg'Vyasat .. a price of ?2;6,75,000/-per acre was also relied^upon., ;

(e) Learned counsel for the land ownets also relied . / upon an Agreementto Sell (ExhibitPW-6/1) which^was-;V \ • . executed by one Shri Khushi' Rafin in favour of^a , •society'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder,land was agreed to be sold on 0'5.08.1996@>18 lakhs per acre. It was. : urged that th^ land-was in the •revenue estate of > village BhalswaJahangir Puri and thus was pressed in , ' ^ = aid as good, evidence of fair market value of land in •; . ' the said villageas.of the date ofthe agreement to sei|. / i.e; 5.8.1996.- , ; • V ,' y '; •;. :

9., Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned semor counsel;:, appearing on behalf of Union of India relied oh a Sale Deed-dated^05.06.1996(ExhibitR-2), Whereunder1-03 bigha of land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purr; was. sold at a price of ' 1,40,MOand urged that even if 12% appreciation,.peranhun^. ,i,s to b|ii given on said value/,the price as on the date of the notific^ionunderSection4 comes to fl,94,782^per:bigha,and . . thus ityvas argued that since price of similarland rs available in the ,|Same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoinilg village or to adopt the price of developed fand for . LAApB.No.99972010&coimectedmatters ' Page7of2^2" .-.A IV fixing the market value of undeyeloped agricultural,land . having a^ vast area.. Learned counsel also argued that the teamed .Land! Acquisition Collector.has assessed..'the fair : ; ; ' iTiarketvalue of the land at a price much higherthan the one ; reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so .has the learned Reference Court..'; . , - •• ; • >" •id- :It may be noted that when,judgmentwas reservedin the. . / , above captioned.matters on August, ZOll, decisioh had " -been reserved' for judgmeht In^ a batch of land; ;acquisition •appeals,lead matterbeing LA.App.No.266/2008title^^ . Vs.. UO! &Anr. m which similarargumentsas were advanced " with respect to similar evidence relied upon' in the instant, ^ appeals^ and learned senior :coansel ,Sh.Sanjay• Poddar '• submitted that in response to the arguments ,of learned counsel,for the land owners, the argiJnnents:;,whichhe had advanced on the earlier occasion may be :treated as. his , . r respoi^se. ; y . . v ' il. "the topography of village Bhalswa jahangiriRuri has ^ come out in the depositionof Shri TrilokChand(//a/^a/^fM/a/7) who appeared,as PW-2 m LAC No.ll2A/20q8::titled : i/cr Union of India in which he has explaihed the topology of the / area while proving '^^ Aks Sizra Ex:PW--2/lof village BhalsWa • JahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur ' . and Libaspur are situated,in the North, villages Mukhmelpur ;. and Burariare situatedIn the East,villagesSamaipurBadIi and • Haiderpurar^ situated iin-the West and villages,B;harolaand - : Sarai,Pipalthalaare Situated in .the South of/villageJahangir ' - Puri.' • • • . ^ " • LA.App;No,999/2010^ connectedmatters ; • " Page8of22 • J. :]5: • i2. T rnay, additionkily note that the •jay but plan of the . National; Capital-Temtbry of.- Delhi/ published by the-GoverntTient of NCT Delhi -would reveal that village BhalsWa Jahangir Puri is situated on the eastern side of :G.T.Karnai Road i.e. National,Highway No.l. VillagesBadli, Samaipur, Llbaspiir, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mahiobrpur (Narelaj. are on the western side of National Highway No;l. . ,

¶13,, It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangirPuri, post acquisition'of agncultural lands in the revenue estate of saief-villag^fwasfor re-settlement of.slum and J.J. dwejlers'J.e.the charac|er of urbanization in the area was of a"kind Where. Vpotential price increased due to urbanizationwas of a weak nature. In the decision reported as 5//7<7/7 I/5. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) A81, it was noted thatthere existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir Puri in the area which had sprung: up during the ,period of emergency i.e. the year 1975- - , 76. It has to be rememberedthat the two subject Acquisitions-^ , :werfealso for rersettlenientofslum andJJ.Clusters.'

¶14The decision in^ LA.App.No.266/2Q08iai Sinaii Vs. UOi /^ ML :y:Jh\ch was reserved-on 12.8.2011 and-liad yet to be" pronounced on 19.8:,201i; .when iristant appeals were reserved • for judgment, has since been prohouhced.by me on 23.8.2011' and-1 would highlight that while assessing the fair..market- •' .value of the land, situated, in' 10 revenue estates in,the same ^revehue.district i:.e. North-WestDelhi being reyenue•'estate of " villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth,>lipur, Narela,;^ Rajapur Kalan,. Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, HoJambi Khurd and Bawana, 1 had noted that the topology of the area ' .LA.App.No.999/201'0.&connectedmatters 'Page9of22 ' .iV constituted a 'V at tine point of intersection where G.T.Kariiai Road i.e. ,NH-1 and RolntaI< Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point, proceeding in. different directions, at Sabzi jViandi. It needs to be higl-ilighted tiiat village Bhalswa JahangJr Puri is, outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1. ^ , ; ?

¶15In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued fronfi time to time ,1 had dealt with nqtifications issued in'the year ' 20pC), 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel ,for theMand.owners -hafl relred' upon; the sale^de^ dated

25.04.2001 (Exhibit, :PW-15/1) and the ,s^l0 deed datfd ,24.0,3.2000 (Exhibit RW-15/2) i.e. the .same,; sale deeds oh which' learned'-counspl for the land owners haye' placed reliance upon as: noted in sub-para

(d) of paratS h^reinabove. In the said judgment dated; 23.8.2011,^1 have discafded these two sale deeds: for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 tci

23.whic.h are reproduced hereunder;- . , r ; • '

21., The: first argument is, predicated on the 2. sale deeds,.Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, ^hd the :' . sale deed Ex.PW'-l/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per ;the 'fornier, fair niarket value for the .former i comes to ?26.75 lakhs per acre and the, latter

(a)., , t63.478 lakhs per acre. The jearned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale-deeds as reliable , evidence to determine fair niarket value of agricultural lands,/fpr all the villages In questioh on the reasoning that, the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence> while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2g05 had stated that to his kn.owledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-;i/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters- ' .Page10 of-22 t i-'- .1^ ' • been held not to-be reliable evidence to determine , fair markej: value of agricultural lands on the, ; , reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony of PW-7,Sister Annie,the secretary of the organization stated that the organization had to • - ' pay the pricefor the said.pieceof land as it was the' ; ^ only plot of the retiuisite size suitable, for the, requirement of the-organization and is being .used for destitute vyomen i.e. there was'"a special ' ' circumstance, personal to the vendee. . ; -v, 22v As held iri the decisions reported as 1995 (1) ; : see .717 Land Acouisition Officer Eiuru'& tPrti Vs. ' ^ jsti Rohini&Ann (Refer para 6) and'2009 (14) SGC , , 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land AcauisiHnn Cmc(^t (Refer.para p) sa-le transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence'by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso:facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to ^ determine, the marlcetyaiue of land in an area: for ! the^ reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyerto pay a higherprice. The :: , true test is. the price which a weH informed willing buyer would pay to an equally Well informed seller ! • without being influenced by -. ; any special ' ;' circumstancesorthe faricy to buy a particularpidce of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the marl<et and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood;the / . topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would hot be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the ' ' area. I would be failing if I do not highlightth,at the Union of India had/vpeliedupon the sale-deed dated

20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification^^dated

27.1.2003 where-under.agriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist tb ah ; agriculturistfor a much less.ei"price i,e'. ?17,74,109/-; per: .acre as against the'^ ptrice which .corned-to , ?63,478' lakhs per acre fdr Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28 89 , lakhs per acre.for Ex.;PW-l/3. The 2 sale deeds LAApp.No;999/2010&.corrected'matters' , ' • ' ., Page11 of22 -r-,. ./I '• •: •, EX-PWrl/2>nd iBx.pw-1/3, themselves'are fiavina s • .eyidSnce of the , • • , ; . ;• -destroy each-othier. ' . •' p.; ., ; "T'hus, apart from the reasoningof the learned - /;> Keference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted - ; . reasons in para 21, abo\/e would be> ad^ltiDhal reasons: to hold .that the 2 sale deeds Would . ' advisably not be good evidence wherefrom, fair niarket value of subject lands can be determined and more so^ for the.reason Ifind that undervarious•' between.7,000 to 8,000 bigha ofland / have been;,acquiredand when the acquisitionis of such large an area, it would,make all the more a - reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having .intrinsic evidenceof the transactionbeingth#result of^a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing.hot to ' ^ note an unreportecl decision cited by learned '• • . the .-decisbn dated = , ^^-12.2008 disposing of a batch Of appeals lead ,, , , matter being LA.App.No.193/20d6 ; r-g//7ce deceased) thm !Rc; j/s. um x /ire if ^35 ,, highlightedthatthe sale deed therein by whiih L&T, had purchased8 bigha and.9 biswa of agricultural .land; for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and > ,hence^the price reflected therein could not be . treated as a good .evidenceof value.of land in the area was: rejected by the Court :and the-price in ^ u deduction on account Of the being large, was accepted by the ' • . r ; in the instant cases the 2 sale^ • /' t •'/? .^Mestioh i:.e. Ex.PW-1/2..and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis: to.,determine'fair , .. The argument;ignoresthe reasoninq .A.; '• ,38 Wherein the.DivisionBench,,,did^notaccfept the : . , .value in the sale deed on its own logicas indicative ' • , - , \: of the market value,- but found that if the mrice ^ ther^n was reduced by 1/3.^^^ the'pricearrived:at •: ;, , would be the same.aswouId.beprice arrivedat with V ref^ence .to the average rate:,of ^the sale deeds • V ^ Procluced by :the Union of India i:.e. .the-saledeeds / •I^AApp/No..999/2piO;& ' ,. • . Pagb12 of22' • • ' > • produced by the Government were giving a [Drice of ?1,37,000/- per bigha' and the sale deed under w:hich L&T had purchased the land gave'the price ^3,26,600/-per bi^'ha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'^ would be.deducted. frofn the sum of ^3,^6,600/-. It may further be higihlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale vyas 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995 and

16.11.1995 . and the Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at " as • aforesaid i.e. ?2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning'of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is, not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, . the .appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. 1 would highlight once again, that I have "hereinbefore already' noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per ' the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."

¶16For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable a'nd good evidence to determine fair market value' of agricultural land in .village , Bhalswa jahangir Pun. .

¶17As .regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village BhalswaJahangir Puri has been agreed: to be transferred for a sum of ns lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003 whereunder4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at n5,70,000/-. .. .. • ,

¶18. Now, if the price,,as per the own showing of the land owners was ^5,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, •it. is L^.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page13 of22 difficult to comprehend the abnormally high value as per Ex,PW-6/lwhich is dated'8.4.1996 in which the stated price is . ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzlethat in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7,years down the line the price fell to ?15.7 lakhs per acre. I need to highlight-that in paragraph of . its decision, • the learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-e/l has opined that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer and an .informed willing seller and ..without being influenced,by special needs pertaining to a '"A . - particularland, and-had thus discardedthe said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value.of a -large track of land had,to.be fixed., -.v

¶19I have discussed-this, issue in my decision dated , 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah Vs. UP/ & Ann i.e. where an abnormally high' price for a parcel. of land is with' , evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller being well-informed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be good evidence to detei'mine fair market value of a large part of land, being'the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten with fancy,,,whichobservations have already been extracted by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and :, 23 of the said decision. Ireiteratethe saqe. - ,2.0.. As regards,auction rates, of developed; plot of land situated in the,Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,; I do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned-Reference Court contained in paragraphs'29 and 30 which are premisedoh the decisionof the SupremeCourt reportedas Laf LA..App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' Page14 of22 .0 , Chand l/s. Union of India, 2009 (15) SCC 769. Sin^ilar is'the reasoning pertainingto the evidence relating'to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.

¶21in my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 , , ' l3i Singh l/s. UOi & Qrs., Thad extensivelydiscussedthe law declared by the Supreme'Court in Lai Chand^ with referenceto price at which developed,plots were allotted by-differentagenciesi.e. DDA and DSIDC; Relevantobservations and findings in-para29 to 31 of the decisionin iaiSinah'^cases are extracted hereunder;- ^ have evidence asvto Wh^at was I I - the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whetherit was 20% or 75%, we do not know. ..The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in Lai Ciiand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine . , ' the.value of land in the subject cases. 't is no doubt true, as held even by the learned Reference Court, that with the development of • : 'Bswana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela ResidentialScheme, the subjeictlands had ' ' . • acquired a building potentiality, but 'the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.

¶31I hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping , in view the observation and the findings'- of the SupremeCourt in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said eviderice-as reliable. On the issue of potentialityrelating itself to the value, I promise the « •• reader of th.e decision,,to deal with the same while 1 shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value ofthe.lands. , ' ' ^ V ?LA.App.No.999/2010&• connectedmatters ' • .Page15 of22 /<,

22.. Highlighting that in La! 'Chancfs case (supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and . was too inchoate wherefrom , fair marl<et ,value could be crystallized.

¶23I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land. \ (24: Pertainipg tq .price notified py, L&DQ ^f€?f,..charging;/ . unearned increase vyhen Ie^se-hold'property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state; that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in Lai. Chands case (supra). wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded • withi reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for Rohini ResidentialScheme, I negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that | am;, concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^ 758.01-bigha and 929.05 bigha. ;

¶25From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC ' ^ NO.112A/2008it emerges that village Burari is on ,the east of village.Bhalswa.Jahangir Puri and indeed the ,plan for Delhi' . would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Purir, and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we ti"ave[ towards Mubarka Chowk from the Tibetan Re-settlem'ent colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. the . two are adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'Outer..RingRoad' and LA.App.No.999/2016 connectedmatters ;' ' •' ' • Page16 of22 A thus the fair market value of land on a particulardate in the two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessingthe fair marketvalueof the land situated mvillage Burari, which was acquired pursuantto notifications dated 24.07.1998and 18.07.2003issued under Sectidn 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, I had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence In my decision pronounced on '

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead rhatter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008titled Raiba!Anr., Vs. Uninn nfinHi= , In the said decision,Ihad assessedthe fair marketvalu^ of agriculturalland at ?11,60,580.82per acre for CategoryA . land, no,44,522.73.per acre for Category B. land and ^9,28,464,65per acre for Category Cland pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquired,pursuantto notificationdated 18.07.2003 had been assessed;by me at ?19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ?17;28,512/-per acre for Category Bland; \n .JarSingh's .(supra),^ had assessed.thefair marketvalueof land in 10 villagesas ;under;-.^ S.No.

¶1Village Name' Date oTiMotification under Section 4 Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 Fair market value, On lakhs per acre). ^^14.75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for. Category 'B'

2.

¶3Holambi Kalan Bawana

7.8.2000 •7.8.2000 ^4.75 '4. Khera Khurd

11.9.2000 LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ?14.75 for Category 'A' ^4.38125 for Category 'B' ^14.835 for .Category 'A' ^14.46413 for Category 'B' Page 17.of 22 A-

¶5' Narela

2.5.2001 ,n6.165 . for Category 'A' ?15.76087 for Category'B'

6., Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category'B' 7; Alipur

22.8.2001 ?16.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B' ^

¶8, Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 ^

16.745 for Category 'A' tie.43811 for Category 'Bv:

9., Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001, ^16.745 for Category 'A' n,6.43811 for Category 'B'

10.. Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655 : 12. Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ,n8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 nS.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 nS.655

¶15Sanoth

27.1.2003; ^9.435 for Category 'A' ?18.94:912 for Category 'B' , ri8.47539 for Category

¶16, Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' ^8.94912 for Category's' n8.47539 for Category 'C 21: In lai SinqfTs case (supra) 1 had also analyzed the' minimum land rates enhanced by the Governmentfrom time to time and found the same not to, be :the ipse dixit of the •LA.App.No.999/20108c cojinectedmatters /«; Government officers and liad found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such • increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court, reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah i/s. UO! Ajir, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander ]/s. UOI. Ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005Mahender Sinah I/?. UQ! & Qrs. decided on 11.5.2006 Wherein based on sale deeds and otherevidence land price was determinedon variousdates betweenthe years 1993 to 1996 and in relationto the minimum pricefixed by the Government 1 had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said, decision as under:-

¶50The. aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued, from . • . time to time by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated . by me in para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of. agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing . from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990minimum price was ^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997i.e. the increaseis ?5.35.lakhs spread over 7 years Which gives us a 115.054%increase,in 7-yearsand the averageprice increaseWould be 16.436%. The price . - ^ ^'?n/next l^year is by 11.2% and thereafter by ^ 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e! ' ' of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization" between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative..evidence,for'this would-be the decision of the Division^ Bench of this Court in Gajrafs case (supra), which I have discussed in .para 49 . ' , • . above. ,

¶51I need to elaboratea little more with respectto the decision in Gajrafs case. . Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agriculturar land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in paras;9to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page19 of22 A the^ Court discussed tlie valuation on the basis ui agriculturalyield.andfound that the gross return peracre per annum was ^95,000/- for multiple cropped land and haying good irrigationfacilities and thus capitalizedthe land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussingthe second method of land prices of comparable, lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards,the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining, village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on "sale instances found that based on the said sale instancesand giving benefit of industrializationthe lapd price would come tcb ?10,03,364/-.per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then Consideredthe prices,notified by the Governrnentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76,121/-per acre .for Category 'A-lands.and ?9,51,121/- per acre for Category :B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentialityhad been , well-factored in, when the Government issued the-minimum price notificationw.e.f.,1.4.1997,evidencedby the fact that even with respect to sale transactionsthe Court found that as against the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at'^10.lakhs per acre, sale instances were •- "'Qhlightingthat the price was no,03,364/-per acre. • decision.in MahenderSingh'case, pertaining to.village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above ' hig.hlightswith referenceto para 28 to 31 of the decision' that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential- ' ,• commercial and industrial future exploitation of. . ' agriculturalland in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so. projecting and the lands;-theoreticallyacquiring a'.i : • potentiality,,the same had not translated'into a reality: evidencedby the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date ' of the notification with which the Division Bench was.. concerned,virtually no developmenthad taken place in • village Bawana and' Holambi Kalan and' nobody had' exploitedthe potential. As I have already highlightedin para 49 above there is a gap between what would be ' expected to be the market growth and what the.market ^ actually grows. The decisions in Gs^s case, and LA.App.No;999/2010&connectedmatters• ,Page20 of22-: Vl of Mahender Singh's case highlight that potentiality , , translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about

16.5% per annum and , thereafter the extended .potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for.. Delhi' 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and probably", there was enough availability of developed land and the.hunger;of , ' the market,got saturated.

¶53The empirical evidence in the instant"case, apart fronn the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which 1have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not, relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon ' by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant .... whereto, in some references in village'Rajapur Kaian the . • ' learned Reference Court has held that .as per the said . sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the. date of the sale i^e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural.'.lands would be ^19'16,040/-per'acre as of 2.7.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which, was sold for j ?5,39,690/- and ?70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (?5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price n7,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002. /"•

¶28In the absenqe of any cogent.evic^enceplaced on record by either parties other than the minimum price notified by the Government from •time, to time, I hold that the Learned ReferenceCourt has rightly adopted the correct principleand h.as relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciationsby suitablyincreasingthe price to make up the, interregnumperiod between the dates when minimurh prices were notified and the date of the notification issued under LA.App.N,o.999/2010&connectedmatters , Page21 of22 Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to further enhance-tilecompensatiohor to reduce the same I dismiss ail appeals and cross objections,whetherfiled by the land owners orthe Union Of India.

¶29"save the partiesto beartheirown cost. , (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) SEPTEMBER19, 2011 . JUDGE mm . • . . LA.App.No.999/201G&,coimectedmatters' •' ' • . , Page 22 of.22

$-59 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 346/2011 GOKAL CHAND Appellant Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG