Vinod Kumar & Anr v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. \L- * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ^ , ludqment Reserved On-ig^h^uniKt 9m i ludqmentDeliveredOn: September.2011 LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH_ • ... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate . Mr.DeepakKhosIa, Advocate and ' Mr.N.S.Negl,/\dvocate. • ^ " Vs. .U0,&another , Respondents Througfi: IMjr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate ^iMr-SarijayKumar i^athak.Wr.Sachin Nfwani, ivir.siddliarttiPanda and Ms.K , . K^omudiKiran,AdvocatesfonR-i • : ' AND i + LA.APP. 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2010 X rivi I^A 1007/2010&CM No.15181/2011 , 1009/2010,1, LA.APP. ' 1010/2010, LA.APp' '^0-12865/2011,LA.APP: 5/2011,:lA.'aPP." 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP 38/2011 & CM La:aPP. 89/2011,W.Ap" 142/2011,, LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP '161/2011 IAAl 163/2011 LA,APP. 246/2011, IAApp 298/201lX^i^rAPP.347/foil®)1^AP LA.APP. 38^/2011, LA.APP7"387720II^'^lA7\PP' '-A.APP. 406/2011;.;La.'aPP.' (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15 09 zuuu Award No. 06/2002-2000,Village-BhalswaJaSl^O AND & LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters •: : • • . • • • + LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP 88/2011 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. 240/2011, LA.APP. 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, LA.APP; 243/2011, LA.APP. • 244/2011,- LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011,LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.T5194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011&CM No.15182/2011, LAAPP. 373/2011;, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011; LA.APP. 380/2011, ' LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. 3.93/2011, LA.APP; 398/2011, LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011 . LA.APP. 410/2011,'LA.APP. 414/2011. ' (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated

30.07 1998 Award No. 18/2000-2001,Village-BhalswaJahangirPuri)- . CORAM; ; HGIM'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whetherthe Reportersoflocal papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? • . '

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the ' • Digest? , , • : PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. \ , ' proceed with an.apologyto the readerby referringto a notification issued later in point of time and then to a notificationissued prior in point of time; but the reason is that the learned counsel for the land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notificationissued later and had • required price-to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notificationwhich was issuedearlierin pointoftime. ,2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangir,Purlwas acquired pursuant • . ; , LA;App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . ' • Page2of22" to a notification , dated 15'.09.2000 issued under'Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a' public purpose, natnely,; . , 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After • following the due process,., the. Land Acquisition Collector •' announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated 2,0.04.2002,• • whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired, land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is. equivalent, 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, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference-Court, in ; the lead matter, being LAC .No.112A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or ^4,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Learned Reference Court,; while assessing the fair market value, of the^ acquired land,- adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the . . , Government as on 01.04.2000, notified vide, Circular dated.

11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as ' the learned Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing the compensation, did not grant ..appreciation for the period from 01-.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the r • . Land Acquisition Act was issued .on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @12% per annum with reference to the . : base date 1.4.2000 and the price?13.82 lakhs per acre.' •• . . . . LA.App.No;999/2010&connectedmatters ' Page3of22

¶5Another parcel of, land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue estate of village -Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was a.cquired pursuant to a notificationissued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998,for the same public purppse i.e. 'Rehabilitationof .. JJ Cluster;. This was followed by a declarationunderSection 5 of the Act issued on 04.08.1998. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, whereby he ' assessed the fair market value of the acquired land .at ' ?2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalentto m.20 lakhs per acre.

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment hiade by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land owners sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the •lead matter 'being LAC, No.lllA/2008titled Chandrawati Union assessedthe fair marketvalue of the acquired land at fll,46,670/- per acre.. The difference;in the destination reached is on -the: same, reason as noted hereinabovepertainingto the notificationdated 15.9.2000i.e. the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoradopting the land rate notified by the Government with effect from 1.4.1997 vide circulardated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notification,in', question,was issued,on30.7.1998and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement @'11% per annum for the interregnum period. V:

¶7..The Union of India as well as the land owners have challengedthe assessmentmade by the Learned 'Reference LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . ••Page4of22 1^' Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned .above. .' . •. .

¶8On behalf of the land owners, justifying. higher compensation, reliance was placed on the fGllowing documentary evidence:- ;

(a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide •notification ' : dated , 16.04.1999 ^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 Bhalaswa Jahangir Pun, was-fixed • at T5830/r per square rheter or f2,35,92;400.92per : , acre':and it was urged, that^jf 50% i^ deducted, ; ;'!/. ; towards development .cost, the'; land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of ; •. '/ fl,17,96,200/-per acre. , , • - i' ' • • . (b) The rate' Charged-by MCD. for allotment, pf - ' cohimercial plot in Sanjay GandhiTransport Nagar, in ; terms of the Resolution No.705 dated

23.11.1987 . (Exhibit PW^3/1), whereby IvjCD decided to allot developed plots to the transporters @ :?425/- per , ' square meter and Exhibit .P.W-3/2, a copy of the , . Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005,,whereby MCD decided to allot the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar@?4,500/-per square metre were ufgeG|to be, material and good evidence: Relying 'on these LA.App.No'.999/2010&connectedmatters '. Page5of22 . documents,' learned ;counsej for the land owners argued that the rate stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year. 1976, would evidence that fair market value of developed land comes to ?17,19,857/-per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the devei.opment costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to^8,59,928/- per-acre in , the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the. fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be524,76,592/-per aGre.

(c) Learned counsel for ,the land owners also • ' placed •reliance on the auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the" year 1997-9.8 and • 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and •PW-8/3). While relying on the brochure of DDA pertaining to the year 2006, it was argued that as. per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of'69 square • metre to 71,square metne in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ^23.72:; lakh to ^28.4 lakh, which according to learned counsel translates to a price of n4,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged' that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land. . (d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit,PW-15/1), whereunder land hieasuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ ^32,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes ' to ^56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA'.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . Page,6of22 ' contended.that this sale deed should be relied upon,, after making a reasonable deduction towards development cost to deternnjne the fair market value of undeveloped agricultural'land in village Bhalswa' Jahangir Purl. Another-sale deed dated 24.03.2000 . , (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated, in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ?26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was . executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ns lakhs per acre., It-was urged that the land was in'the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl.and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value .of land in the' said village as of the date of the agreement to sell i.e. 5.8.1996. , . . • 9, Per contra, Sh.Sanjay/Poddar learned senior counsel -appearing on behalf of Union of Ihdia relied on a Sale Deed dated 05.06.1996.(ExhibitR-2), whereunder 1-03 bigha of land in villag.e Bhalswa.Jahangir Puri was, sold ^t a price of ^1,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per annum is .to be given on said value, the price as on the date of the notificationunder.Section 4 comes to ^1,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to'the adjoining village or. to adopt the price of developed' Hand-for LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' ' • • . • Page7of22 fixing the marl<et value of undeveloped agricultural land having a'vast area. - Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed.the fair , marketvalue of the land at a price much higherthan the one ,reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned-Reference Court.

¶10It may be' noted that when judgmentwas reservedin the .above captioned matters on 19'^'' August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgment in a ^batch of land acquisition appeals,lead matterbeing LA.App.No.266/2008titledJaiSinqh : 1/?. [JO! &Ann in which similarargumentsas'were advanced with respect to,similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned, senior counsel Sh..5anjay Poddar, submitted that in response to the arguments of learned counserfor the land owners, the arguments which•he had . advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has. come out in the depositionof Shri Trilok Chand Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008titled Raj.Sinqh lA Union of India in which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the Al<s 5/z/-a Ex,PW-2/1 of, village Bhalswa JahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur • and Ubaspur are situated,in the North, villages..IVlukhmqlpur and Burari are situated in'the East, villagesSahiaipurBadli ^nd •Haiderpurare situated in the West and villages Bharola and. Sarai Pipalthafa are situated in the South of. village Jahangir Puri. • ' , , , LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page8of22 I

¶12I may additionally note that the •l^y out plan of the National Capital Territory of. Delhi, published-by the Government of NCT Delhi would,reveal that village. Bhalswj^. Jahangir Puri is situated on the, eastern side of G.T.Karna'l Road f i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Llbaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Nareia) are on-the western . side of National. Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that 'whatever deveiopmenl: took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri> post • acquisition of agricultural, lands in the:"revenue estate of said-village was for re-settlement of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the character of urbanization in the area was of a kind where potential price increased due to urbanization was:,of a weak nature. ^In the decision reported as Amar Sinah' I/5. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 4<5'i, it was noted that there existed a resettlement colDny 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 were also for re-settlementof,slum'and J.J.Clusters.. . ' ,

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinaii Vs. LJOI ^ Ann which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved ' .for judgment,,has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and I would, highlight that while assessing the fair market.,; value of the land situated in 10 revenue, estates in the sarhe revenue'district, i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd,.Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Nareia, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd ' and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area LA'.App.No.999/26lO&connectedmatters , Page9of22: m .constituted a 'V at the,point of intersectioh where.GT^Karno! • Road i.e. NH-1 and ,Rohtai< Road i.e. NH-IO' bifurcateci at a -: co.mmoh. point, proceeding in:.different directions, at Sabzi Mandi.' It needs to be highlighted.that village Bhalswa Jahangir . /Puri is outside the'V aforesaid and as explained hei-elhabove • and abuts'towards the east of NH-i; . , .

¶15In-the appeals relating to the sai^ iO villages where land • " were acquired pursuant to-different nQtificatipns issued from • , • time to time i had dealt'with notifications issued in the .year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In^ those cases, learned Counsel,. for the land owners, had relied upon the sale deed dated

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) and lhe sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same, sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners h^ve placed , reliance upon as noted in sub-para

(d) of para 8 hereinaboveX In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to. 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-. '

21.; The first argument is predicated on ^the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PV\/-l/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market-value.for, the .fprmer ,' comes to .?26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ,^63'.478 lakhs per acre. The .learned Reference ^ : ' Court has rejected the

¶2sale, deeds as reliable, evidence • to . determine fair market value of agricultural lands, far all the' villages In question'bh . the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was • : . *• purchased, by a religious trust by the name of .'Ra.dha Swami Satsang' and-Suraj. Bhah; PW-6 who . •had tendered the sale ' deed in evidence,, while . . deposing in'Courf in LAC. No.68/2005 had ^stated .:^' that to his knowledge the land was purchased for . '. ,• , •\. • religJous purpose and was being used for a religious • purpose. ,The sale, deed, Ex.P.W-1/2 has 'likewiise •LAApp.No:999/2010& coimectedmatters, • ; •• ,i Page10 of22 u been held not to be reliable evidence to. determine •fair market value of agriculturar lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a, IMon 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 price for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of |the requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute, women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

22., As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) see .717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. (stiRohini&Ann (Referpara 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 l^ohd. Raufuddin l/s. Land Acnuisition Offire r . (Refer para 13) sale, transactions evidenced in a . ' sale deed which are tendered in evidenceby virtue of Section 51A of the LA.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto ^treated as an exemplar..sale deed to determine the market value 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 well informed willing • ' buyer would pay to ah equally well informed seller without being influenced by ' any. special circumstancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpidce of land. An infornried buyer would be one who has. studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailingprices. If a Igip.: • buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he ^ pay a much higher price and this would not be . a good index of fair market value of the lands,.inthe area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed datfed

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

27.1.2003 where-underagriculturalland in ..village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist'to an agriculturistfor a mu'ch lesser,price i..e. ?17,74,109/- .per acre as against, the price which comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28 89 lakhs per acre, for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA,,App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page11 of22 Ex.PW-l/2"and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful [Drice and ex-facie destroy each other. ' _ ,

¶23Thus, apart from the reasoningof the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that, the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrorti fair market, value of subject lands can be determined and niore so for the reason 1find that undervarious ... ^wards'nearlybetween7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisitionis of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale'deeds having '"trinsicevidenceof the transactionbeing the result # of the buyer. 1would, be failing: not to note an unreported decision cited by learned • .^ 9nn« ' decision dated P disposing of a, batch of appeals,, lead ' , matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh ' • • . " .(Since, deceased) thru LRs I/?, upi ^ it was . highlightedthat the sale deed therein by which 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 evidence of value of land in the area was rejected by.the Court and the price in question,with suitabledeductionon accountofthe parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instantcases the 2 sale u t u ^^'^^stion i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair' marketvalue. The arg,umentignoresthe reasoning ^ ofthe Division Bench in paras 37 to'

38.wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3^^ the price arrived at would be the same as would be price arrivedat with reference.to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds ~• ; LA.App.N6.999/2010&connectedmatters ' Page12 of22 produced by the Government w,ere giving a price of ^1^37,000/-per bigha and , the sale deed" under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price ^3,26,600/-per bigha and the average would'come to ?2,31,800/-which was near about the price of ?2,15,1.60A per bigha, if 1/3'"'''would be deducted from the sum of ^3,26,600f. ,lt may further be highlighted, that, in the said judgment the year of •-the sale was 1993 and tine notification under . Section. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated , , -

24.7.1,995 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. I would highlight once again, that. I have hereinbefore • already noted, the • inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sple'deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually • destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value/' 16, For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa jahangir Purl.

17.. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit-PW-6/1), the land situated in village BhalswaJahangir Puri has been agree.d to be transferred for a sum of ^18. lakhs^per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land .was sold at ^15,70,00.0/-. . • .

¶18Now, if the price., as per the own showing of the land owners was ?15,70,0.00/- per acre as on 01.07.200.3,. it is LA.App.No.999/2010 connectedmatters • Page13 of22 difficult to comprehend the abnormally high value as p'er Ex.P\A/-6/1which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is ^18 lakhs per acre. ' It is indeed a puzzlethat in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line,-theprice fell - to ^15.7 lakhs per acre. I need to.highlightthat in paragraph of its decision, the learned Reference Court,' while examining Ex.PW-6/1 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 particularIand,.and had thus discardedthe said sale deed a^, not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed.

¶19. I have discussed this issue in my decision dated

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah Vs. UP! &Anr. i.e. where an'abnormally high price for 3 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 deterrnine fair market value of a large,part of land, being the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and •,23 of the said decision. I reiterate the same. - ,20. ..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 :0f the learned Reference.Court contained,in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premisedon the decisionof the SupremeCourt reported as La! LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters, Page14 of22 Chand I/5. Union of India 2009 (15) SCO 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to 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 fai Sinqii I/5. UOJ & Qrs., I had extensivelydiscussedthe law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case with referenceto price at which developed plots were allotted by differentagencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevantobservations and findings in para 29 to 31 ofthe decisionin iaiSingtis case are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was 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. Whether.itwas 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 Chand's (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to dkermine • ^ the value of land in the subject cases.

¶30It is no, doubt true, as held even by the learned Reference Court,, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela ResidentialScheme, the subject lands had acquired a,, building potentiality^ but the question - would be what, would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself. . • •

¶311hold that the learned ReferenceCourt,-keeping m view the observation and the findings of the SupremeCourt in Lai Ciiandscase (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. .On the issue of potentiality.relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' ' . Page15 of22 m \'

¶22Highlighting that 'in La! Chands case (supra) the .Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and •. was too inchoate wherefrom. fair market value could be • crystallized. . • . 23. I reiterate the reasoning to hpld.that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanj.ayGandhi Transport Nagarand^ price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be"' irrelevant to determine fair.market va|ue. of agricultural land. ^24. Pertaining to price., notified by L&DO for charging' unearned increase when iease-hdid 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 La! Chanel's case (supra) wherein this kind of . evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with, reference to village, Rithala where lands were acquii'ed for Rohini ResidentialScheme,I negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to li&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring:'758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha." ,25. From the topology of the area and as per th^ testimony of Tril.ok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC. NO.112A/2008 it 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. Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara MajnU'Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillages separated by .'Outer Ring-Road'and ,LA.App.No.9,99/2010&connectedmatters • . ' Page-Idof22 thus the fair market value of land on a particulardate In the two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessingthe.falrmarketvalueof the:land situated mvillage Burari, which was acquired pursuantto notifications dated 24.07.1998and 18.07.20P3issued under Section 4 of, the Land AcquisitionAct, l .had consideredthe material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008titled Raiba!& Or^ ]/s. UnJnn nf Inri!^ x. Ors^ In the said decision,Ihad assessedthe fair marketvalue of agriculturalland at ni,60,580.82per acre for CategoryA land, ?10,44,522.73 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 ^7,28,512/-pei" acre for Category Bland. \n JaLSIaM'scase,iscip^. I had S.No. Village Name. Date of Notification under Section 4 Fair mari<et value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 ^14.75 for Category 'A' ?14.3728 for Cateaorv 'B' • 2. • - • —\ , Holambi Kalan'

7.8.2000 ^14.75

¶3/% Bawana; .7.8.2000 ^14.75 for Category 'A' ^14.38125 for Cateaorv 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd •

11.9.2000 ^14.835 , for .Category 'A' ! n4.46413 for j. Category'B' LA.App.No.999/20108c connectedmatters Page 17 of 22 i 2^

¶5Narfela

2.5.2001, fI6.165; for Category 'A' ' fl5.76087 for Category 'B' .6. Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 n6.745 for Category ,'A' ?16.43.811 for Category 'B' 7; Alipur

22.8.2001 , . ?16.745 for Category'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B' :

¶8Holambi Khurd 2?.8.2001 ?

16.745 for Category 'A'. n6.43811 for Category 'B'

9., Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 ?16.745 for Category 'A' ?I6.43811 for Category's'

¶10,Sanoth.

7.12.2001 n7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ^18.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi ,23.5.2002. , ^18.655 13: Holambi Kalan , 23.5.2002 n8.655 ,14. Alipur

23.5.2002 ^18.655

¶15Sanoth

27.1.2003 ?1,9.435 for Category 'A' ^8.94912 for Category'B' . ^8.47539 for Category '.C

16.. Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 n9.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 -for Category 'C

¶27In jai 'Singh's case (supra) 1 had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time to time.and found the same not to be the ipse dixit the. LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojinected matters Page 18 of 22 ' : Govemment officers and had found not orlly,rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as-2d0"6 iy ad Delhi 13\GairaiSina/\Vs UP! - Ml, 2004 .IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander l/s. ^<9/. -Il l (7004V DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. UO! Rh nnrpphri-faHVrjonc^jpn in LA.App.No.866/2005Mahender Sinah Vs, UQ! & iPrs. decided . > • on 11.5:2006whereintased on sale deeds and oth^revi^e ' ,:land,price was.determinedon variousdates betweenthe years ' " 1996 and, in relationto the minimum pricefixed by the-;., G^overnmentI .had ;highlighted,in• paras-50 to :53 the said''' ; W • • decision as under:- . ; ;;";A , "50.. Th.e:aforesaid,judgments'noted the preceding • /; : V. ^ : paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from, y, - " ;time to time by the "Gbverhmentof WCT Delhi notifying • . ;,- . minimum price for agriculturallands,inDelhi 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 year:s.commencing>; from, the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990minimum price was ,J . ^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 years and ^ ' the averageprice increasewould be .16.436%.- The price ^ . . ,. rise over the.next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by ' ll%,forther(ext2yearsand

11.5% for the next year i.e. as 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;tl^^ Division'Bench of this Court in Ga/fia/'s case (supra), which I have discussed In para 49 ;• above. • • ..i' ,

¶51I need to elaborate a little,rriorewith respect to the decision in Gajrajs case. Discussing the evidence / • pertaining to fair market value of aghculturar land in V' ; /, : village;Holambi-Kalan as of 15.111996, in:paras 9 to. 17 - : LA.App.No'.999/2010&connectedmatters- • :Page19 of22 ' •' • the^ Court' discussed the evaluation 6n the basis of. agriculturalyield and found-thatthe gross return peracre per annum was ?95,000/- for multiple ic'ropped land and having good .irrigationfacilities and thus capitalizedthe • land price at f9.5 lakhs pgr-acre. Discussingthe/second method of land - prices of connparabie lands in the .surrounding areas including potentialjty, in para 19 onwardsthe Courtdiscussedthe.niatter^withreferenceto ' ^ land prices in. adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCl - Godcwhs had corae up and based ori sale ;instances^ . found that based on the said sale instances.and giving benefit of industrializationthe land price would come to ' ^10'03,364K,peracre (Refer para 31). The Court the^ - .,considered,the priced notified by the Goverhraentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked oiit the mean ' average\figureof ?9,76,121/-,per-acre for Category 'A' l^ds and ?9,51,121/- per acre for Category iandsv ,^ ' .highlightsthat the potentiality had been •. well-factored in when the.: Government issued the • rninimum price notificationvv.,e.f.,1.4.1997,evidencedby ' . ^ the fact that even with respect to sale transactions'the . that as against the minimum.prlc^ nbtifiedv . at tlO lakhs per acre, sale instances were' : highjightingthat the |3ricewas ^10,03,364/-peracre. - . 52. The decision \v\ MahenderSingh'^ p^rtRininn to village:Bawana,:referredto by m:e in par^^49 above^^ ^ highlightswith 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 ofpotentiality•; Vhad, noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so ' projecting and the lands: thepretically .acquiring .'a' . . ' potentiality,the sahie had not translated into a rea^ityi evldenced:;bythe;facfcthattill the,year1996 i.;:e. the.datev of .the.hotificatidn with which the Division.Bench was , : cpncerined,.virtuailyno develoiDmenthad,taken place in : village^awana and Holambi Kalan and no,body had ' ' . exploitedthe potential..As l-havealreadyhig'hJIghtedin i : para 49 ,above there is a gap. between what, would be ' ,• expected to be the market growth,and what the. market . actually. g.rbws.: The •decisions"in; 'Gajrafs caise and : . : •LA;App.No.999/201.0&connectedmatters' ,' • '••V Page20 of22 ' \ • "2^ . • . Makender Singh's case' highlight that potentiaiiity-V. V ^ translated itself Jpto a reality •Mtween 1990 and 1997 i when prices rose .by about

16.5%, per annum and , thereafter the extended potehtiallty did not translate with the requisite rnomentuni and the acceleration fell to between 10%,per annum to 11% per annunl^ One rea!&in • ' could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a ^ ^ . fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, : ;' • commercial and industriaT and ' probably. ^there was , enough availability of developed land and i:he hunger;of :, ' • the market got saturated. , ' . . . ; ,

¶53The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart k from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners,, in , ' . respect wherebf the learned Reference Court has given • good reasons not to rely upon and for which-1 have 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 yillage RajapUr Kalan.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.'20.5.2062" ' ;, : " ; : : the, fair market value of agricultural, lands would be . . tl9,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which, was sold for , ' " ^5,39,690/- and ^^70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would • - • mean that ?6,,09,850A (f5>39>690/- + ^70,160/-) were spent would yield ,the price n7,74,109/-.per acre as,of • . th;e date of the.sale j.e.: 20.5.2002. , \ 2,8.. •in the absence, of any cogent evidence placed on record ^ /by eitherpartiesotherthan the Minimum price riptifiedby,the , ' ^ V' Government from time; to time,./I ;.hold that the Learned . , • •. /Reference Court hasTightly adiopted the correct principle anid-/ • ' has relied upon,the:correct evidence and>has'giyeh the correct ; ' . appreciations by suitably,increasing the price to,make up the" ' interregnum period .^between the, d^tes. when minimum prices , iwere notified and the date of the ndtificatipn issued undBr-, . •LA.App.Mo.999/2010£& connectedmatters . Page21i)f22 ' • . . Section4of the Land AcquisitipnAct and finding no scope to fyrtlier enhance the compensationor to reduce the same ] dismiss all appeals and cross objections,whetherfiled by fhe land ownersor the Union ofIndia. • ^ , 29, Meavethe partiesto beartheirown cost. SEPTEMBER19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010;&connectedmatters ^ • (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE 'K' X. 'Page.22of 22

$-60 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI > + LA.APP. 347/2011 VINOD KUMAR & ANR Appellants Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. versus % UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with l^r.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG