Dharam Bir Yadav & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm I- \ * IM the HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ^ H • • . ludarheni Reservpcl On: j g* August ?m i ludqment Delivered On: 19^'^Seoteiriber. 2017 ^ ' LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) Appellant ' Through: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate, ! Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and ; l^r.N.S.Negi, Advocate. Ms. ' ' / , ' • " • .i, , UOI&ANCTOER . : Respondents. ^ Through: Mf.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvbcate . . ' ^ll^r.Sanjay Kumar PathaI<, |Vir.Sachin , • '^?wani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and |\/js.K ' '^^o'T^LidiKiran, Advocates foriR-l ^ • • . i AND t ' ^ 961/2010, LA.APP., 1001/2010 & CM No.12885/201,1,LA.APP. 1007/2010&CM No 15181/2011 • • la APp.. 1009/2010,1 LA.APP: 1010/2010^^ ^ '^0-12865/2011,LA.APP. 5/2011 LAaPP LA.APP. 38/2011^ CM 89/2011, LA.APP. LA-APP. 160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP LA-APP. 246/2011, LA,APP. 247/2011,' LA.APP.' ' ^^8/2011, LA.APP. 3.47/2011, LA.APP.' ^ 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011, LA.APP 387/201l' LA^PP" JSn: fRela^ng to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 & Award No. 06/2002-200^,Village-BhalswaJahangir^ij. ; AND ; . LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters '• Page1of22 ' ,+ LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.l2871/2011; . 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. 2:02/2011, 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; J:AAPa=a46/2Qll, LA.APP. 348/2011-£^GMNo.15194/2011, ; . 3^/2011 &CM No.15182/201i7^A.APP;373/2011, , . LXAPP. 37472U11, LA.APP. 3/6/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011,' LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. 393/2011, LA.APP. l98/2011> 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: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG . 1-Whethertine 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? I PRADEEP NANDRAIQG. I.

¶11proceed 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 notificatipnissued later-and had • required. price to be, suitably reduced pertaining to the .notificationwhich was issuedearlierin pointoftime.

¶2Land measuring,758-01 bigha situated in the revenue• estate ofvillage BhalswaJahangirPur] was acquired pursuant' ; LAApp.No.999/2010&coiiiiectedmatters Page2of22 ^•to a notification dated

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation o.fJJ 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 20.04.2002,. 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 atjri3.82 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, iri. the lead matter, being LAC No..112A/200^8,titled Rai Sihah 1/5. Union of India, assessed •the fair market value of the acquired land at.?3,0,3,534 per bigha or ^14,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well as, th6 Learned Reference Court,, ywhile 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

11.09.2,011. 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 S.,ection .4 of the 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 n3.82 lakhs per acre: LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters : , ••Eage3of22 ^; i • - 5. Another parcel of land ad-measuring 92;9-,05 bigha," •situated 'in the same revenue' estate of village B,halswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'., This was followed by a declaration'under Section 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 ^11.20\,lakhsper ' ' • , acre. \

¶6Dissatisfied With the assessmenb made by the Land . , AcquisitionCollector,the land owners sought referericeunder , ' Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in .the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/2.o6'8.titled Chandrawati I/? . Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair marketvalue of the acquired . ; land at ?11,46,670/- 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 .circular'dated25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notificationin • question was issued on 30.7.1998and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement @ 11% per annum" for^ the ' . interregnum period.

¶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 s Court by way of the. appeals and' cross objections mentioned above. • . ^ '

¶8On b.ehalf of the land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on , the following 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 Purl, was fixed at f5830/- per square meter or .^2,35,92,400.92 per acre .and' it was urged that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should • be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of ^1,17,96,200/-per acre.

(b) The rate charged by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanjay GandhiTransport Naga'r, in' terms of the Resolution ,l\lo.705 dated

23.ll.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD 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(a)?4,500/- per.square metre were urged to be : material and good evidence. ' Relying, on these LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page5of22 documents, learned counsel 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 development 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 be ^24,76,592/-per acre.

(c) . Learned counsel for the land owners also placed reliance on the auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in'the year ,1997-98. and : ' 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-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 sq:uare metre to 71 square-metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ^23.72 lakh to ?28.4 lakh, which ' according to learned counsel translates -to a pricfi of ^14,36,36,363 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 measuring 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'. .Page6of22 D contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, , after mal<i.ng a reasonable deduction, towards . , development cost to determine the fair marker 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 big.ha situated in the revenue estate of village \ Mamurpurwas soldto 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 P.W-6/1) which was : • . executed-by one Shri Khushi Ram in .favour of a • society 'lv|/s.Butterfly',whereunder lanql was agreed to ^ be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that .the 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 village as of the date of the agreement to sell ^ • • i.e. 5.8.1996. : \ ,

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay ,Poddar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, relied on a Sale Deed dated 05.06.1996(ExhibitR-2), whereunder1-03 bigha of land •in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was sold at a .price of ^1,40,000and urged that even if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given on.said value, the price as on the date of the • notificationunderSectio.n4 comes to n,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.;Handfor 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-ofthe land at a price much higherthan the one; • reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference Court. • ,, • . ' '

¶10It may be hoted thatwhen judgmentwas reservedin the above captioned matters on 19^^,August,20.11, decision had, been reserved for judgment in a batch of land acquisition appeals,lead matterbeing.LA-App^No.266/2008titledJalSinqh 1/t. IJO! &Ann in which similarargumentsas were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant • appeals, and learned^ senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar ' submitted that in response to the arguments of learned counsel'for the land owners, the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be, treated"as his ' response.

¶11The topogra'phy of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the depositionof Shri TrilokChand [HaiqaPatwarh . who appeared as PW-2 in LAG No.112A/2008titled Raj Singh, I/? Union of India in which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the Al<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/lof village Bhalswa JahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated,in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villagesSamaipur Badii and Haiderpurare situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of. village Jahangir • Puri. •, LA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmatters " ' • • " Page8of22

¶12I may additionally note that tlie lay out pJan of the National Capital Territory of. Delhi, published by the Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on.the eastern side of G.J.Kamai Road i.e. National Highway No.l. VillagesBadli, Samaipur, .Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are .on the western side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands i:n 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 l/s. Union of-India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, it was noted that there-existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir Purl 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 we,re also for re-settlement.of.slum and J.J.Clusters. ' . -

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2G08 iai Sinaii Vs. UOi d MH 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 pronouncedby m.e on 23.^8.201,1. and I would highlight that while assessing the fai.r market value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same' • revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue, estate of , villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi,,.Sanoth"Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalan, Khefja Khurd,"Holambi Khurd' ' -and Bawana, .1 had noted that the topology of the areai LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters - • Page9of22 •v; •; •. • :• • . ly constituted a 'V .at the .point of intersection wiiere G.T.Karnal Road. i.e. NH-1 and Rphtal< Road i.e.. NH-lO bifurcated at a common point, proceeding in ...different directions,, at Sabzi • l^andi. it needs to be Inighliglited that village Bhalsw,a Jahangir., Puri is outside the 'V' aforesaid and as explained ,her,eihabo\/e and abuts towards the east of NH-1. .15. In the appeals relating to the-said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications 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-lS/l) ..and the sale, deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale , deeds on . • which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in' sub-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. . In the said,judgment dated 23.8.2011, 1 have discarded these .,two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to •• ' ^ 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-. ' • " •

¶21The first argument is .predicated on the 2 sale • deeds, Ex.P.W-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the ' , . sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001^ As • , ' per the former, fair,niarket value for the former ^ , comes to ?26.75 lakhs per acre and. the latter @ > ^63.478 lakhs per acre. the learned Reference ' - ' Court has rejected the .2 sale deeds as reliable ' ...evidence to .determine fair market , value of agricultural lands, for all the villages In question 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.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for . religious purpose and was being used for a religious • purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2pi0&connectedmatters . • Page10 of22 IK' ' been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value. .of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony of P\A/-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) SQQ 1\1 land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. isti Rohini &Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14),SCC 369 l\^oiid. Raufuddin l/s.. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by 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 tri^.e test is the price which a well informed .willinig-,. buyer would pay to an eqi4aJly weH irifbrpied^elter without being infFuenced'- by' any ;sp,^:cial circumstancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpigee of land. An informed buyer would be one whp has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the. topology of the area and the prevailingpnces., If a buyer has a fancy for a ;parti,cularpiece of land, he may pay a much higher price.and this would, not be a good index,of fair market yalue af the lands iriithe , area. I would be falling if I do not'highiight that the Union of India had relied^ upon the sale deed dated

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

27.1.2003 where-underagriculturalland in village Raj^pur Kalan was sold by. an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesser price i.e. ^17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which corries 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 . Page 11 of 22 • Wj \ Ex.PW-1/2^and. Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having : • intrinsic evidence of.the fanciful price and fex-facle destrdy/each-other; c /. V . : V Thus, apart from the reasoningof the learned Reference Court,- with which'I concur, afore-noted ' reasons in para 21, above would be: iadditiona! r^sons tO: holid that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be, good evidence wherefrom^fair ;, value of•subject lands' can -be deterrhined and niore so for the reason Ifind that undervarious :awarc^ nearlybetween^7,dQ0 to 8,000 bigha bfland have been,acquired and when the acquisitidnis of • such large an area, It would make all tHe more a .reason to be circumspectionsale deeds h&^inq intrinsicevidenceof the transactionbeing the result Of a, fancy, of the buyer. [ would be: failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned' decision ^dated .19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter^being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh \ (fince deceased^thru IRs Vf;: nm it was: highlightedthatthe.saledeed therein by which L&T I P^''^hased8 bigha and. 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been . ignored by the learned Reference Court on the grotjnd that L&T.-had a fancy for the said, land ahd hence the price. reflected therein coiilci 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 suitablededuction''oh, accpuntof the parcel.of land being large,, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instantcases the 2 sale" deeds^ in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 , should be treated ,as the basis to determinefeir marketva-lue,.The argumentignoresthe reasoning the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38^ wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the ^ mthe :SBle deed:on its own logic as-indicative ^^ the market value, but found that if the price . ther^ri was reduced by 1/3^; the price arnved^cat WQuld be the sanie as would be price^arrivedat with , .: :reference to the average rate of the .s4le deeds • producedby the Union M India i.e. the sale deeds LA-.App.No.9-99/201.0&;cpi'mected,matters Page 12 .of 21. • prGduted by the Government were giving a price of ^1,37,000/- per bigha and, the sale deed under which L&t' had purchased, the '(and gave the .price ^3^2:6,600/-:per bigha-and the average would come to j^2,31,800/- which was'near about the price of t2il5,1.60/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'' would b^ deducted from the sum of ^3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale' was 1993= and the riotification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitibn 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^ f2,15,16,0/-., In other words, tbe reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be. read pedantically: but nieaningfully-It is riot that the Court treated;-the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required ta 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 sale deeds and; this,itself is intrinsic mutLially: destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds; reflecting fair market value.'-', ' /o

¶16, Foi'.the reas.ons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in ' the. present case; also as reliable and good evidence to, ' determine fair market value, of agricultural'jand in .village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. ; '

¶17As regards the agreement to sell. (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in villageiBhalswaJahahgirPuri has bie6n-agreed•, ,, ;to:be transferredvfora sum of:^18-lakhs per acre. ;j;he land " owners-have also, -relied upon-ariother sale deed dated

01.07.2003whereunder4^16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold.at • ;p5,.70,000/-. • , ^ • . , " - . 18. . Now, Jf the price., as per trie own showing of:the land' owners was flS,70,000/-. per acre as on 0M7.2d03, It is,' LA.App.No.999/2010 cSi connected matters '^ Page 13 of 22- ..v.- difficult to compreliend"the abhormally. high .value as per ^ • Ex.PW-6/1which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is ^18 lakhs per acre.. It is indeed a puzzlethat in 1^96 the price was ?18,lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the pricefell, ' to n5.7 lakhs per acre. I need to highlightthat in^paragraph ! of its decision,, the learned Reference Court, while: • examining Ex.P\/V-6/l.Has opined that the said pride was for special considerations and not the price settled, between an : informed wiHing,buyer and an informed willing; seJIer a'n^^ . without being influenced,by special «needs pertaining to a ' particular land, and had-thus discarded the said sale deed.as •not reliabJe evidence wherefromfair market,value'ofa large/ tra,ckofjandhad:to-befix:ed.' .. ^ f.,..

19.^ 1 have discussed this issue in my decisipn dated

23.8.2011jn. LA.App:No.266/2008lai Sinah IA-. UO! &Ann i.e: ' ^ where"an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is-with evidence; of; neither the;;,buyer nor the sdler' being well-" informed and there being a, special feature qua the land and ,;have held the same,not to.be good evidenceto deteyrninefair market value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have I.AI ;• already been extractedby me hereihabovei.e. paras 22 and-: ; 23 ofthe said decision: rreiterate the same.;

¶20As regards auction rates of developed plot, of land situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transpor|:Nagar, I do, not find! any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel,for thev ^ land owners and concur with .the decision ,of the learned^' ReferenceCourt containedin paragraphs29 and 30 which are , premisedon the decisionofthe Supreme Court reported aS ta/' LA,App.No.999/2010&comie,ctedmatters ' • . Pagel4o£22 I.-. - . 1? Chand'.l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the . • reasoning pertainingto the evidence relating to auction r^tes df residential plots orflats^ by DDA.

¶21In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.,No.266/2008, jai Singh \/s. UP! & Qrs., I.had extensivelydiscussed the law declared by the Supreme' Court In Lai Chands ,raqp with referenceto price at which developed plots were allotted by differentagencies i.e; PDA and DSIDC. Relevant;observations and findings in para 29 to 31 ofthe decision in iaiSingh'scase , • • are extracted hereunder:- • ;

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to'what was' • P • the,extent of.plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference,to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed • by DSIDC and Narela-ResidentialScheme 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/m'Lal_Cha:nd'sC3se (supra),•which ' . . ; render this evidence as most unrelialpleto determine •. • 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 l^arela 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.

31., 1hold,that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping in view the observation and the, findings of the Supreme Court in Lal_Chandscase (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentialityrelating itself to the value, l. prornise the . reader of the decision, to. deal with the. same while 1 - : shall•be discussing-as to What should' be the fair • market value of the lands. , LA.App.No.999/2010&comectedmatters • Page15 of22 IT

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chancfs case (supra) . the Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate wherefrom fair market value -could .be crystallized.

¶23I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay GandhiTransport Nagar and price at which ,DDA sold developed plots .and flats .would, be irrelevantto determinefair marketvalue of agriculturalland.,

¶24Pertaining'•to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when,, lease-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 La! Chands case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was . specifically discussed, and discarded with, 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-measuringi 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha-. _ .

¶25From the topologylo.i" the area and as per the testimony of Jrilok 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. Bhals\A/a 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 adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'Outer .Ring Road' and ' . • ' " • I • • LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . .Page16 of22 . thus the fair market value of land on.a particulardate in the two villages would be compaifabl-e,

¶26While assessingthe fairmarketvalue of the f&nd situated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuantto notifications dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1 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 matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008titled Ra/ba/& Or. v. Union nf mm. Qr^ In the said decision,Ihad assessedthe fair marketvalue of agriculturalland at ^1,60,580,82per acfe for CategoryA land, ?.10,44,522.73 per acre for •Category B land and 28,464.65 per acre-for Category'Cland pertainingto the ' notification-dated24.7.1998. .The land acquired-pursuanto notification dated 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. In lai Singh's {supra), I had ' S.No. Village Name Date of Notification under Section 4 Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 fl4.7'5 for • ^ Category 'A' n4.3728 for

¶2- ' • •Holambi Kalan onnn Category'B' '

¶3lN.L4iaiI Bawana /.O.zlUUU .7.8.2000 U4.75 n.4.75 for Categpry 'A' . ' n4.38125 for , Cateqorv 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.9.2000 ^14'.835 . for .Category 'A' .^4.46413 for Category 'B' LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters I 7/

¶5Narela

2.5.2001 ?16,165 , for Category 'A' : ?15.76087 for Category 'B' ,6. • Holam.bi Kalan , 22.8.2001 ?16,745 for Category 'A' tl6.43811 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' ^6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 ,. ^16.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811,for Cateqorv 'B' MO.' Sanoth'

7.12.2001 . ?17.295 . 11. : - Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ^8.655 . 13. Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 - ^8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶15Sanoth

27.1.2003 fl9.435 for Category 'A' ?18.94:912 for Category 'B' ' ^18.47539 for Cateqorv 'C

¶16Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 ?19.435 Tor Category 'A' n,8.94912 for Category 'B', , ^18.47539 for Cateqorv 'C 1^' S/nqh's case (supra) I 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 of the, • LA.App-.No.999/2010&' cojmected.matters •; . • ^ • •;; ^ ^ ^ Governmenf officers and had 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 Sindh Vs. WO! & Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOL lil (2004)-DLT QS Hukum Sinah Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in .LA.App.No.86.6/2005.A/^/7e/7Q^e/-5//7a/7Vs. UQ/ & Qrs. derldpri on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence • ; land price was determinedpn variousdates betweenthe years 1993 to 1996 and in relationto the minimum priceifixed by the Government I 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 ih: Delhi as tabulated • by me in ,para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices oi agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing' from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990-minimumprice was ^4.-65 lakhs per,acre which rose to nO lakhs per'acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread,over 7 , ,y^ars which gives, us a 115.054%increase in 7 years and the averageprice increase-wouldbe 16.436%. The price' rise over the next,1,year is by 11.2% and thereafterby .11% for the next 2 years and.11.5%for the next year i.e., f as, of. 1.4.2001. It, shows that due tO' urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good co.rroborative evidence for this would' • . be .the decision of the Division Bench of this 'Court in Gairafs.case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 • • , above. . • • , . • ' • . • ' ' • ' . 51, I need to elaboratea little more with respect to the decision in Gajrafs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in paras:9 to 17 . .la. App.No.999/201Q&connectedmatters • Page19 of22 • • • / ' they Court: 'ciiscu the valuation on the-basis-m agriculturalyield and found thatthe gross return per acre per annum was ^95,000/- for multiiDle cropped land and having good irrigationfacilities and thusxapitaiizedthe land price at,;f9.5 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 benefitof.industrializatiohthe land price would come to np,03,364/. per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then , considered,the prices notified by the Governmentas per , policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked oLit the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/-per acre for Catfegory 'A' ^ds and-?9,51,121/-per acre for Category'b'l^ds . , The decision highlights that the-pbteritiality.had been well-factored in when the Government issued the minimum pnce notification w.e.f. 1.4.19^7, evidenced bV' ; . . the fact that even wifh respect to sale transactions'the-that as against the minimum price notified ur tlO. lakhs per acre, sale instanceswere highlightingthat the pricewas.ei0,03,364/-per acre. - ' , ' : 52, The decision in MahehderSinqh'<^ p^rtRim'nn to village Bawana, referred to, by me In para 49 above, ^ghlightswith referenceto para 28 to 31 ofth^:decision ^hat the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into : V , accpunt by the Court which was projecting residential,. cornmercial and industrial futufe exploitation of W- , , • : .39[ic:ultural:land in' Delhi and on the issue of potentiality^ ;. v' noted-that notwithstanding the Master ,'Plan so ' " projecting, and ^the lands theoretically acquiring a^ : potentiality,the same had not translated into ,a reality ; , ' , evidenced,by the factthat till the year 1996 i.e. the date '•- , - of the notification with which the Division Bench was .. concerned, virtually no developmenthad taken place m ; - village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nabody 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 Gairafs case and LA./^p.No.999/20r0&connectedmatters Page20 of22 \. * lA. Mahender Singh's • case highlight that potentiality-translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 19,97 when prices rose by about

16.5% per annum apd, thereafter the extended potentiality did not translsiite 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 from, 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 f'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•.village Rajapur Kalan the teamed 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 fl9,16,040/- 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 .^6,09,850/- (.^5,39,690/- .+ ^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ?17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002. ,

¶28In the absence of.any cogent.evidence, placed, on record by either parties other than the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that the Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct iDrincipieand has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make'up the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date of the. notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmatters ' . ' Page21 of22 Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope}tQ furtiier eniiance tine compensationor to reduce,,the same 1^ dismiss ail appeais and cross objections,whetherfiled by the land ownersorthe Union ohndia;

¶29Ileavethe partiesto beartheirown cost. ' ' (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) SEPTEMBER19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010&collectedmatters ' ' '' b •. , ' .; , Page 22'of 22

$-62 / *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 349/2011 & C.M.No.15182/2011 (cross-objections) DHARAM BIR YADAV & ORS Appellants 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