UOI v. Khima & Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OFDELHIATNEWDELHI +LAANo.69/2007.LAANo.409/2007&CMNo. 17649/2007 LAANo.729/2008&CMNo. 11072/2008.LAANo.730/2008 & CM No. 11075/2008. LAANo. 734/2008^LAANo.740/2008 & CM No. 11365/2008.LAANo.758/2008& CM No.11541/2008 LAANo.759/2008&CMNo. 11544/2008.LAANo.765/2008 &CMNo.11663/2008.LAANo. 766/2008 &CMNo.11666/2008 LAANo.769/2008& CM No. 11673/2008.LAANo. 801/2008, LAANo.815/2008.LAANo.900/2008& CM No. 13682/2008 LAANo.551/2008.LAANo.834/2008& CM No. 13167/2007 LAANo.835/2008& CM No. 13170/2008.LAANo.838/2008& CM No.13178/2008.LAANo.839/2008& CM No. 13181/2008 LAANo.862/2008& CM No. 13310/2008.LAANo.865/2008& CMNo.13325/2008.LAANo.250/2007& CMNo.5881/2008 LAANo.512/2008& CMNo.6505/2008.LAANo.523/2008& CMNo.6637/2008.LAANo.529/2008& CMNo.6818/2008 LAANo.547/2008& CMNo.7088/2008.LAANo.570/2008. LAANo.626/2008& CM No. 8922/2008.LAANo.665/2008& CMNo.9691/2008.LAANo.666/2008& CM No.9694/2008 LAANo.667/2008& CMNo.9697/2008.LAANo.669/2008& CMNo.9704/2008.LAANo.702/2008& CM No.10214/2008 LAANo.704/2008& CM No.10266/2008.LAANo.810/2008& CMNo.12278/2008.LAANo.646/2008& CM No.9194/2008 LAANo.391/2007& CM No.17273/2007.LAANo.393/2007& CMNo.17279/2007.LAANo.394/2007& CM No.17282/2007 LAANo.395/2007& CM No.17285/2007.LAANo.1/2008& CMNo.7/2008.LAANo.5/2008& CM No. 19/2008.LAANo.8/2008& CM No.38/2008.LAANo.12/2008&CMNo.50/2008. LAANo.13/2008& CM No.53/2008.LAANo.14/2008& CMNos.56/2008&12818/2008.LAANo.15/2008& CM No.59/2008 LAANo.260/208& CM No.12822&793/2008.LAANo.261/2008 & CMNo.800/2008.LAANo.262/2008& CMNo.806/2008&13968/2008. LAANo.263/2008&CMNo.809/2008 LAANo.298/2008& CM No.1471/2008.LAANo.349/2008& CMNo.2741/2008.LAANo.375/2008&.CMNo.3533&13883/2008 LAANo.376/2008& CM No.3537/2008.LAANo.391/2008& CMNo.3561/2008.LAANo.397/2008& CM No.3763/2008 LAANo.398/2008& CM No.3766/2008.LAANo.402/2008& CMNo.3774/2008.LAANo.403/2008&CMNo.3778/2008 LAANo.405/2008& CM No.3795/2008.LAANo.415/2008& CMNo.5877/2008.LAANo.416/2008& CM No.5900/2008 LAANo.417/2008& CM No.5878/2008.LAANo.418/2008& CMNo.5893/2008.LAANo.419/2008& CM No.5884/2008 LAANo.420/2008& CM No.5885/2008.LAANo. 421/2008 & CMNo.5902&10005/2008.LAANo.422/2008& CMNo.5897/2008 LAANo.423/2008& CM No. 5892/2008.LAANo.424/2008& CMNo.5903/2008.LAANo.439/2008& CMNo.5890/2008 LAANo.440/2008& CM No.5901/2008.LAANo.441/2008& CM No. 5876/2008.LAANo.442/2008& CM No.5889/2008. LAANo.451/2008.LAANo.459/2008.LAANo.460/2008 LAANo.461/2008.LAANo. 462/2008.LAANo.463/2008 LAANo.502/2008& CM No. 10022-23/2008.LAANo.503/2008. M>4 No.673/2008&batch , Page1of4 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. fS ' LAANo.504/2008.LAANo.505/2008.LAANo.506/2008&CMNo.8842: 43/2008.LAANo.507/2008.LAANo.511/2008.LAANo.543/2008&CM No.7077&10865/2008.LAANo.586/2008.LAANo. 588/2008,LAANo^ 591/2008.LAANo.592/2008.LAANo.595/2008.LAANo.605/2008,LAA No.607/2008.LAANo.632/2008&CMNo.9079/2008.LAANo.633/2008 &CMNo.9084/2008.LAANo.634/2008&CMNo.9087/2008,LAANOj 639/208&CMNo.9303/2008,LAANo.642/2008&CMNo.9176/2008,LAA No. 643/2008 &CMNo.9180/2008.LAANo. 644/2008 &CMNo. 9183/2008.LAANo.645/2008&CMNo.9188/2008,LAANo.672/2008,LM No.707/2008&CMNo.10881/2008.LAANo. 717/2008 &CMNo, 11022/2008.LAANo. 718/2008& CM No. 11025/2008 LAANo. 719/2008 & CM No. 11045/2008.LAANo. 721/2008 & CM No. 11050/2008.LAANo.725/2008& CM No. 11060/2008 LAANo.726/2008&CMNo.11063/2008.LAANo.727/2008&CMNo. 11066/2008.LAANo.728/2008& CMNo.11069/2008 LAANo.389/2007& CM No.17268/2007.LAANo.392/2007& CMNo,. 12380&17276/2007.LAANo.404/2007& CM No. 17632/2007 LAANo.405/2007& CM No. 17637/2007.LAANo.406/2007& CM No. 17641/2007.LAANo.407/2007& CMNo.17643/2007 LAANo.408/2007& CM No. 17646/2007.LAANo.410/2007& CM No. 17653/2007.LAANo.411/2007& CM No.17656/2007 LAANo.2/2008& CM No.10/2008.LAANo.3/2008& CM No. 13/2008,LAA No.4/2008& CM No. 16/2008.LAANo.6/2008& CM No. 23/2008,LAANo. 7/2008& CM No. 26/2008.LAANo.10/2008& CM No. 44/2008.LAANo. 16/2008& CMNo.62/2008 LAANo.17/2008& CMNo.66/2008.LAANo.18/2008& CMNo.69/2008, LAANo.283/2008& CM No.1388/2008.LAANo.285/2008& CM No. 1393/2008,LAANo.288/2008.LAANo.297/2008& CMNo.1468/2008,LAA No.306/208& CM No.1913/2008.LAANo.307/2008& CM No.1916/2008, LAANo.308/2008& CMNo.1924/2008 LAANo.312/2008&CMNo.2006/2008.LAANo.313/2008&CMNo. 2012/2008.LAANo.314/2008& CM No.2020/2008,LAANo.315/2008& CMNo.2027/2008.LAANo.316/2008&CMNo.2031/2008 LAANo.317/2008&CMNo.2035/2008.LAANo.321/2008& CM No. 2082/2008.LAANo.322/2008& CM No.2086/2008.LAANo.323/2008& CMNo.2089/2008,LAANo.350/2008& CM No.2745/2008.LAANo. 395/2008& CM No.3756/2008.LAANo.400/2008.LAANo.409/2008,LAA No.427/2008& CMNo.4370/2008 LAANo.428/2008& CM No.4374/2008.LAANo.429/2008& CM No. 4379/2008,LAANo.430/2008& CMNo.4383/2008.LAANo.433/2008& CMNo.4460/2008,LAANo.450/2008& CM No.4841/2008.LAANo. 9/2008& CM No.41/2008.LAANo.86/2007.LAANo.95/2007,LAANo. 107/2007.LAANo.108/2007.LAANo.111/2007, LAANo.117/2007& CM No.4042/2008.LAANo.176/2007.LAANo. 191/2007,LAANo.194/2007& CM No.9640/2007.LAANo.195/2007& CM No.9641/2007.LAANo.238/2007& CM No.5894/2008 LAANo.239/2007& CMNo.5875/2008.LAANo.240/2007& CMNo. 5886/2008.LAANo.241/2007& CM No.5896/2008.LAANo.242/2007& CM No.5879/2008,LAANo.243/2007& CM No.5898/2008.LAANo. 244/2007& CM No.5880/2008.LAANo.245/2007&CMNo.11205/07 5887/2008,LAANo. 246/2007 &CMNo. 5895/2008.LAANo. 247/2007 CMNo.5888/2008 LAANo.248/2007&CMNo. 5891/2008.LAANo.249/2007&CMNo, . . . . . . 1 * Avi_ c}r \AKi« Qnoo /onn i 5899/2008.LAANo.252/2007.LAANo.253/2007&CMNo.8092/200t I lAANo.673/2008&batch nsk Page2 of4 LAANo.254/2007.LAANo.255/2007,LAANo.256/2007&CMNo. 2233/2008.LAANo.257/2007.LAANo.259/2007.LAANo.260/2007>LM No. 261/2007.LAANo.262/2007.LAANo.263/2007 LAANo. 264/2007.LAANo. 269/2007.LAANo. 270/2007,LAANo. 271/2007.LAANo.277/2007& CM No. 12154/07 &5882/2008 LAANo.279/2007&CMNo. 5883/2008.LAANo. 295/2007,LAANo. 304/2007.LAANo.367/2007.LAANo.374/2007.LAANo.384/2007 LAANo. 385/2007 &CMNo.17234/2007,LAANo. 398/2007,LAANo. 401/2007.LAANo.20/2008&CMNo.367/2008.LAANo.253/2008,LAA No.276/2008.LAANo.327/2008& CM No.2164/2007 LAANo.336/2007.LAANo.347/2008& CM No. 2680-81/08 LAANo.371/2008.LAANo.840/2008& CM No. 13185/2008 LAANo. 841/2008 &CMNo. 13188/2008.LAANo.843/2008&CMNo, 13195/2008.LAANo. 864/2008& CMNo.13316/2008 LAANo. 881/2008 &CMNo.13511/2008,LAANo.886/2008&CMNo. 13527/2008.LAANo. 887/2008 &CMNo.13533/2008,LAANo. 889/2008 & CM No. 13538/2008,LAANo.890/2007&CMNo.13511/2008,LAANo. 867/2007 &CMNo.13421/2008.LAANo. 869/208 &CMNo. 13426/2008, LAANo.n/2008&CMNo.47/2008 LAANo. 877/2008& CM No. 13493/2008.LAANo.949/2008 andLAANo.950/2008 % Ved Prakash& Ors.etc.etc. through: VERSUS UnionofIndia& Ors,etc. through lAANo.673/2008& batch Reservedon:October16.2008 Pronouncedon:October23,2008 . . .Appellants Mr. S.K^Routwith Mr. ParminderSehrawatand Mr. M.P. Siddiqui,Advocates for theappellantsinLAANos. 551,460,461,462,502,503, 504,505, 506,507,511, 581

¶586588,5^1,592, 595, 605, 607,400,409/2008, ' 86,176,295,304,374/2007& 371/2008 Mr. DeepakKhosla with Mr. Sumit Jainfortheappellants in LAANos.69/2007,451,459, 4/2008,95,117,176,191,194, 195,269,270,271,304& 367/2007 Mr. B.S.Kharbfortheappellants in LAANos. 107,108and111/07 . . .Respondents Mr. Mr. S.K.Routwith Mr. ParminderSehrawatand Mr. M.P. Siddiqui, Advocates fortherespondentsin Page3of4 n LAANos. 729,758,759,766, 769,834,835,839,547,810, 394,5,8,15,261,263,349,391, 397,398,416, 417, 418, 419, 424,439,441,632, 634, 639,707,717,728,10,17,306, 314, 315, 316, 317, 321,430/08, 239,240,241,248/2007& 327/2008. Mr. Mukesh Guptafor theDDA in LAA729,758&707/08. Ms. ShobhanaTakiarwith Mr. GauranSarinand ^ Ms. SupriyaJunejaforthe.DDA. Mr. D.K.Pandey for counsel , . fortherespondentNo.l in LAA726/2008. Mr. S.S.Dalai fortheUOl inLAA Nos.250/07,523,415, 416, 417, 418,419,420,421,422,423, 424, 439,440,441,442/2008, 238,239,240,241,242,243, 244,245,246,247,248,249, 277& 279/2007. CORAM:- M THE HON 'BLE MR. JUSTICEA.K.SlKRl < THEHON 'BLEMR. JUSTICEMANMOHAN SINGH

¶1Whether ReportersofLocalnewspapersmay be allowed toseetheJudgment?

¶2TobereferredtotheReporterornot?

¶3Whether the Judgment should bereportedin theDigest? A.K.SlKRl.J. Fororders,seeLA.A.No.673/2008. October23,2008 JUDGE Vr2 I (MANMOHANSINGH)' JUDGE lAANo.673/2008&batch nsk Page4of4 'I m i-i ' -i , .! h ••, M ' i!' M i, * INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI + LA.A.No.673of2008 with LAANo.69/2007.LAANo.409/2007&CMNo.17649/2001^ IAANo.729/2008&CMNo.11079/9nnfifmAJNQ.730/2008s &CMNo.11075/2008.LAANo.734/2008,LAANo.740?2008 &CMNo.11^65/2008.LAANo.758/200«^CMNo.11541/2008 lAANo. 759/2008 &CMNo.11544/2008.LAANo. 765/2008 &CMNo.11663/2008.lAANo.766/2008&CMNo.11666/2_008 LAANo. 769/2008 &CMNo.11673/2008.LAANo.801/2008, LAANo.815/2008.LAANo. 900/2008 &CMNo.13682/2008 LAANo.551/2008.LAANo. 834/2008 &CMNo.13167/2007 LAANo.835/2008&CMNo.13170/2008,LAANo.838/2008& CMNo.13178/2008.LAANo. 839/2008 &CMNo.13181/2008 LAANo. 862/2008 &CMNo.13310/2008.LAANo. 865/2008 & CMNo. 13325/2008.LAANo.250/2007&CMMo. 5881/2008 LAANo. 512/2008 &CMNo. 6505/2008.LAANo. 523/2008 & CMNo. 6637/2008.LAANo. 529/2008 &CMNo.6818/2008 LAANo. 547/2008 &CMNo. 7088/2008,LAANo. 570/2008, LAANo. 626/2008 &CMNo. 8922/2008.LAANo. 665/2008 & CM No.9691/2008.LAANo.666/2008& CM No.9694/2008 LAANo.667/2008&CMNo. 9697/2008.LAANo. 669/2008 & CM No.9704/2008.LAANo.702/2008& CM No. 10214/2008 LAANo.704/2008&CMNo. 10266/2008.LAANo.810/2008& CM No.12278/2008.LAANo.646/2008& CM No. 9194/2008 LAANo. 391/2007& CM No. 17273/2007.LAANo.393/2007& CM No.17279/2007.LAANo.394/2007& CM No.17282/2007 LAANo.395/2007& CMNo.17285/2007.LAANo.1/2008& CMNo. 7/2008. L\A No. 5/2008 &CMNo. 19/2008.LAANo. 8/2008 & ^ CMNo.38/2008.LAANo.12/2008&CMNo.5O/2O98. C ' LAANo. 13/2008 &CMNo. 53/2008.LAANo. 14/2008 & CMNos.56/2008&12818/2008.LAANo. 15/2008 &CMNo.59/2008 LAANo.260/208& CM No. 12822 &793/2008.LAANo.261/2008 &CMNo.800/2008.LAANo.262/2008&CMNo.806/2008& i id : 13968/2008.LAANo.263/2008& CM No.809/2008 LAANo.298/2008& CM No. 1471/2008.LAANo.349/2008& CMNo. 2741/2008.LAANo. 375/2008 &CMNo. 3533 &13883/2008 LAANo.376/2008&CMNo.3537/2008.LAANo. 391/2008 & CM No. 3561/2008.LAANo.397/2008& CM No.3763/2008 LAANo.398/2008&CMNo.3766/2008.LAANo.402/2008& CMNo.3774/2008.LAANo.403/2008 &CMNo.3778/2008 IAANo.405/2008& CM No.3795/2008.LAANo. 415/2008 & CMNo. 5877/2008.LAANo.416/2008&CMNo. 5900/2008 IAANn.417/2008&CMNo.5878/2008,IAANo. 418/2008 & CM No.5893/2008.LAANo. 419/2008 &CMNo.5884/200^ 1AANo. 420/2008 &CMNo.5885/2008.LAANo.421/2008_& CMNo.5902&10005/2008.LAANo.422/^n08^CMNo.5897/2008 1AANo.423/2008& CM No.5892/2008.LAANo.424/2008& CMNo. 5903/2008.LAANo439/2008&CMNo.5890/2008 IAANn.fi73/2008&batch nsk Page1of26 i-i; LAANo.440/2008&CMNo.5901/2008.LAANo.441/2008&CMNo. 5876/2008.LAANo.44?/^008 ^CMNo.5889/2008, LAANo. 451/2008.LAANo. 459/2008.LAANo.460/2008 LAANo.461/2008.LAANo.^ft^/^008/LAANo.463/2008 iAANo.502/2008&CMNo.10022-23/2008.LAANo.5_03/2008^ LAANo.504/2008.LAANo.505/2008.LAANo.506/2008&CMNo. 8842-43/2008.L\ANo.507/2008.LAANo.511/2008,LAANo. 543/2008&CMNo.7077&10865/2008.LAANo.586/2008,LAANo, 588/2008.LAANo.591/2008.LAANo.592/2008.LAANo.595/2008, LAANo.605/2008.LAANo.607/^r 'f^«i'AANn.632/2008&CMNo. 9079/2008.LAANo.633/2008&CMNo.9084/2008.LAANo. 634/2008 &CMNo. 9087/2008.LAANo. 639/208 &CMNo. 9303/2008.LAANo. 642/2008 &CMNo.9176/200.8,LAANo. ^ 643/2008&CMNo.9180/2008.LAANo.644/2008&CMNo, 9183/2008.LAANo. 645/2008 &CMNo.9188/2008.LAANo. 672/2008.UANo.707/2008&CMNo.10881/2008,LAANo.717/2008 &CMNo.11022/2008.LAANo.718/2008&CMNo.11025/2008 LAANo.719/2008&CMNo.11045/2008.LAANo.721/2008&CMNo. 11050/2008.LAANo.725/2008& CM No. 11060/2008 LAANo.726/2008&CMNo.11063/2008.LAANo.727/2008&CMNo. 11066/2008.LAANo.728/2008& CM No. 11069/2008 LAANo. 389/2007 &CMNo. 17268/2007.LAANo. 392/2007 &CM No. 12380 &17276/2007.LAANo.404/2007& CM No. 17632/2007 LAANo.405/2007& CM No.17637/2007.LAANo.406/2007& CM No.17641/2007.\AkNo.407/2007& CM No. 17643/2007 LAANo.408/2007&CMNo.U646/2007,LAANo. 410/2007 &CMNo. 17653/2007.Ij\ANo.411/2007 & CM No.17656/2007 I LAANo.2/2008& CM No. 10/2008. LAANo.3/2008&CMNo. 13/2008.LAANo.4/2008& CM No.16/2008.LAANo.6/2008& CM No.23/2008.L\A No.7/2008& CM No.26/2008.LAANo. 10/2008 & CMNo.44/2008.LAANo.16/2008& CMNo.62/2008 LAANo.17/2008& CMNo.66/2008.LAANo.18/2008& CMNo. 69/2008.LAANo.283/2008& CM No.1388/2008.LAANo.285/2008-& CMNo.1393/2008.LAANo.288/2008.LAANo.297/2008& CM No. 1468/2008.LAANo.306/208& CM No. 1913/2008.LAANo.307/2008 & CM No. 1916/2008.LAANo.308/2008& CMNo.1924/2008 LAANo.312/2008& CM No.2006/2008.LAANo.313/2008& CM No. 2012/2008.LAANo. 314/2008 &CMNo.2020/2008.LAANo. 315/2008 & CM No. 2027/2008.LAANo.316/2008& CM No.2031/2008 LAANo. 317/2008 & CM No.2035/2008.LAANo. 321/2008 & CM No. 2082/2008.LAANo.322/2008& CM No. 2086/2008.LAANo. 323/2008& CM No. 2089/2008.LAANo.350/2008& CM No. 2745/2008.LAANo.395/2008&CMNo.3756/2008.LAANo.] 400/2008.LAANo.409/2008.LAANo.427/2008& CM No.4370/2008 LAANo.428/2008& CM No.4374/2008.LAANo.429/2008& CM No. 4379/2008.LAANo.430/2008& CMNo.4383/2008.\AA No. 433/2008& CM No. 4460/2008.LAANo.450/2008& CM No. 4841/2008.LAANo.9/2008&CMNo.41/2008.LAANo.86/2007,Lf^A IjI HHm.. No.95/2007.LAANo.107/2007.LAANo.108/2007.LAANo.111/2007. • V lifi •ii LAANo.117/2007& CM No.4042/2008.LAANo.m/2007. LAANo. 191/2007.LAANo.194/2007& CMNo.9640/2007.LAANo.195/2007 & CM No.9641/2007.LAANo.238/2007&CMNo.5894/2008 LAANo.239/2007& CM No. 5875/2008.LAANo.240/2007& CM No. 5886/2008.LAANo.241/2007& CM No.5896/2008.LAANo. 242/2007& CM No.5879/2008.LAANo.243/2007& CM No. 5898/2008.LAANo.244/2007&CMNo.5880/2008.LAANo. 245/2007& CM No. 11205/07&5887/2008.LAANo.246/2007& CM No.5895/2008.LAANo.247/2007& CM No.5888/2008 LAANo.248/2007& CM No.5891/2008.LAANo.249/2007& CMNo. 5899/2008.LAANo.252/2007.LAANo.253/2007& CM No. 8092/2008.LAANo.254/2007.LAANo.255/2007.LAANo.256/2007 & CMNo.2233/2008.LAANo.257/2007.LAANo.259/2007.LAANo. 260/2007.LAANo.261/2007.LAANo.262/2007.LAANo.263/2007 LAANo.264/2007.LAANo.269/2007.LAANo.270/2007.LAANo. 271/2007.LAANo.277/2007& CM No.12154/07&5882/2008 LAANo.279/2007& CMNo.5883/2008.LAANo.295/2007.LAANo. 304/2007.LAANo.367/2007.LAANo.374/2007.LAANo. 384/2007 LAANo.385/2007& CM No.17234/2007.LAANo.398/2007.LAANo. 401/2007.LAANo.20/2008& CM No. 367/2008.LAANo.253/2008, LAANo.276/2008.LAANo.327/2008& CM No.2164/2007 LAANo.336/2007.LAANo.347/2008&CMNo.2680-81/08 LAANo.371/2008.LAANo.840/2008&CMNo.13185/2008 LAANo.841/2008& CM No.13188/2008.LAANo.843/2008& CM No. 13195/2008.LAANo.864/2008&CMNo.13316/2008 LAANo.881/2008&CMNo.13511/2008.LAANo.886/2008&CMNo. 13527/2008.LAANo.887/2008&CMNo.13533/2008.LAANo. 889/2008&CMNo.13538/2008.LAANo.890/2007&CMNo. 13511/2008.LAANo.867/2007&CMNo.13421/2008.LAANo.869/208 &CMNo.13426/2008.LAANo.11/2008&CMNo.47/2008 LAANo.877/2008&CMNo.13493/2008.LAANo.949/2008 ! andLAANo.950/2008 % Ved Prakash& Ors.etc. etc. through lAANo.673/2008& batch Reservedon:October16,2008 Pronouncedon;October^3 .2008 . . . Appellants Mr. S.K.Routwith. Mr. ParminderSehrawatand Mr. M.P. Siddiqui,Advocates for the appellants inLAANos. 551,460,461,462,502,503, 504, 505, 506,507,511, 581

¶586588,591,592,595,605, 607,400,409/2008, 86,176,295,304,374/2007& 371/2008 Mr. Deepak Khosiawith VERSUS UnionofIndia&Ors.etc. through: Mr. SumitJain for the appellants inLAANos.69/2007,451,459, 4/2008,95,117,176,191,194, 195,269, 270,271,304& 367/2007 Mr. B.S.Kharb fortheappellants in LAANos.107,108and111/07 . . .Respondents Mr. Mr. S.K.Routwith Mr. ParminderSehrawatand Mr. M.P. Siddiqui, Advocates fortherespondentsin LAANos. 729,758,759,766, 769,834,835,839,547,810, 394,5,8,15,261,263,349,391, 397,398,416, 417, 418, 419, 424,439,441,632,634, 639,707,717,728,10,17,306, 314, 315,316, 317, 321,430/08, 239,240,241,248/2007& 327/2008. Mr. Mukesh Guptafor theDDA inLAA729,758&707/08. Ms. ShobhanaTakiarwith Mr. GauranSarinand Ms. SupriyaJunejafortheDDA. Mr. D.K.Pandeyfor.counsel for therespondentNo.l inLAA726/2008. Mr. S.S.DalaifortheUOl inLAA Nos.250/07,523,415,416, 417, 418, 419,420,421,422,423, 424,439,440,441,442/2008, 238,239,240,241,242,243, 244,245,246,247, 248,249, 277&279/2007. CORAM THEHON'BLEMR. JUSTICE A.K. SlKRl THEHON 'BLEMR.JUSTICEMANMOHAN SINGH lAANo.673/2008&batch II•, '»i-'i . ! ' -nl -i. |!;M-

¶1Whether ReportersofLocalnewspapersmaybeallowed to see the Judgment?

¶2To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶3Whether theJudgmentshouldbereportedintheDigest? A.K.SlKRl.J.

¶1All theseappealsarefiledunderSection54oftheLandAcquisition Act, 1894(hereinafterreferredtoasthe'Act'),Intheappealsfiled bythelandowners(hereafter,forthesakeofbrevity,referredas such)theyareseekingfurtherenhancementinthecompensationthan whatisawardedbythereferencecourtunderSection18oftheAct. Ontheotherhand,inalltheappealsfiledbytheUnionofIndia(for short,'UOI '),theprayermadeistoreducethecompensationonthe pleathatthecompensationawardedbythelearnedADJ isona higher side.

¶2Vide Notification dated6.6.1991issuedunderSection4 oftheAct, largetractoflandsituateinrevenuevillageKakrolawasnotifiedfor acquisitionforpublicpurposeviz."fortheplanneddevelopmentof Delhi". ItwasfollowedbyDeclaration underSection6 oftheAct andthereafterAward No.1/93-94cametobepassedbytheLand AcquisitionCollector(LAC). Totallandofthisvillageacquiredwas 8723bighasand16biswas. IntheawardtheLACclassifiedthelands intothreecategories.HeawardedRs.4.65lacsperacre(Rs.96,875/- perbigha)forBlock-Aland.Fordeterminingthismarketvalue,he followedtherecommendationsoftheJointSecretary (Land& Building), Delhi Administration containedinletterdated3.5.1990 lAANn.673/2008& batch mk j'M ilRlii-w- iiH.." whereinminimum price of theagriculturalland had beenfixed, in respectofBlock-B land, market value was fixed at Rs.38,000/- per bigha,whereasfor the landfallinginBlock-Ccategory,marketvalue wasfixedat Rs,32,000/- per bigha by theLAC.

¶3Thelandownerswere notsatisfiedwith thesaidfixationofmarket value of their land and, therefore, soughtreferences,underSection18 oftheAct. The learnedADJ answeredthosereferencesvidehis Awarddated6.5.2003. He did away w|th the categorization of the landintothreeblocksandfixeduniformmarket valuefortheentire land.As per the.said award it was decidedthatfair price and market valueoftheland in dispute as on thedateof Notification was Rs.1,25,000/- perbigha. Both the land ownersas well as UOl challenged the said award byfilingappeals in this Court. These appealswere decidedbyordersdated24.5.2005"whereby Award dated6.5.2003ofthelearnedADJ was setasideandthematters were remandedback to the reference court with adirection^to adjudicatethe matters afresh afterallowingthe parties to lead further evidence. 4: After remandof thecases,thepetitionerinLAC No. 462-A/2005 (nevv/),39/1997(old) led further evidence by producing as many as six v/itnesses. NoadditionalevidencewasadducedbytheUOl.

¶5ThelearnedADJ has decidedthesereferencesvidehisAward dated

4.3.2008 fixingthemarket value of the land inquestion a t Rs.l,09,500/-. TheseappealsarepreferredagainstthesaidAward lAA No.673/2008&batch Page 6of26 •. V fixingtlieaforesaidcompensation,aspointedoutinti^ebeginning. Beforeweadverttotheevidenceonrecordandthesubmissionsof counselfortheparties,itwould benecessarytotakenoteofsome materialfacts.

¶6When thesereferenceswere decided earliervideAward dated ! ' i

6.5.2003,thelearnedADJ hadplacedrelianceupontwosaledeeds, ^ bothdated4.1.1989asperwhichthelandinthesaidvillagewassold atRs.l,60,000/-perbigha. TheDivision Bench,whilesettingaside thatAwardvideitsorderdated24.5.2005,hadheldthatfairmarket valueofthelandcouldnotbebasedontwosaledeeds,inasmuchas oneofthesaledeedsrelatedonlyto 1bighaoflandandanothersale deedwas executedinpeculiarcircumstances,i.e.forgettingbetter \ qualityofwaterforputtingbore-wellfortakingwatertohislandfor •| 'i lih"^ thepurposeofcultivation. • i!

¶7Thi landownershave placedstrongrelianceonthefollowing evidence

(a) Exhibit PW-8/A,which isaCircular No. FE.33(1) 86dated

25.9.1989issuedbytheDelhi DevelopmentAuthority (DDA) fixingpre-determinedratesinrespectofalternativeallotment ofresidentialplotsindifferentareasofDelhi/NewDelhi. For residentialplotsfallinginwest zone,rateofRs.730/- per sq.mtr.isfixedeffectivefrom1.4.1989to31.3.1990.

(b) ExhibitPW-l/A,which isagainaletterdated18.11.1993issued bytheJointDirector (IL)ofDDAaddressedtotheAdditional lAANn.673/2008&batch Page7 of 26 •• •, I i 'i [1 Commissioner(W),DelhiWater SupplyandSewerageDisposal Undertaking (DWSSDU). Vide this letter, certain lands are allotted toDWSSDU forconstructionofpumpingstationin Najafgarh township. The rate fixedfor allotment of thesaid landisRs.20lacsper acre.

(c) ExhibitPW-2/1,which isletter dated24.1.1992of theMinistry of Urban Development(LandDivision),GovernmentofIndia, addressed totheL&.DO, Nirman Bhawan, as well as Vice Chairman, DDA. Vide this communication, the price of Government landforallotmenttovarioussocial,culturaland charitable and other organizations inDelhi and NewDelhi werefixed. In respect of west zone, the ratefixedIsRs.39lacs peracre.

(d) Exhibit PW-2/2 to 2/4as perwhich Ministry ofUrban Development has fixed the market rates of lands in different areasofDelhi/New Delhi underthecontrolofL&DO which showsthateach time higher rates werefixedfor the land in West Delhi.

¶8The perusal of the impugned Award rendered by the learnedADJ would show that the learned ADJ made the policy of the Government ofIndiaforfixationof minimumpricesofagricultural land in respect of land of UnionTerritoryofDelhi(ExhibitR-1)dated

3.5.1990asthebasis for fixationofthemarket price. As per this policy,theGovernm.enthad fixed Rs.4.65lacsper acre(Rs.96,875/- i batch nsk Page8 of 26 1*- '•! ji!• i»i. I s perbigha),theminimumpricefortheagriculturallandfortheareain questionason3.5.1990. ThelearnedADJ notedthatNotification underSection4 of theActinthepresentcasewasissuedpn6.6.1991, i.e.13months after thecommencementof theaforesaidpolicydated

3.5.1990. Heaccordinglygrantedfurtherenhancementinthevalue fixedbytheGovernmentforthesaidperiodof13months at12% p.a.,whichamountcomestoRs.l2,593.75p. Inthesecircumstances, the-marketvalueisfixedat Rs.1,09,468.75p. orRs.1,09,500/- per I bigha. ThethoughtprocessofthelearnedADJ, inthisbehalf,is reflectedinpara22 oftheAward,whichreadsasunder : "22.As discussedabove, Hon 'bleHigh Court of Delhi has alreadyheldthatsaledeedswhichwerefiledby thepetitioners cannotbeconsideredforfixingthepriceandmarketvalueof thelandinvillageKakrola. At thesametime,theHon 'ble HighCourthasalsoobservedthatappreciationfortheperiod for 13months has to beconsidered. In these circumstancesand keeping inviewthattheLand Acquisition Act iswelfare legislation,theargumentsofId.counselfortheUnionofIndia seemstome notconvincingas LAC himselfawardedthe compensation on the basis oftheGovernment Policy, Therefore, there isno reason to deny the enhancement of appreciationfortheperiodof13months, 1am,therefore,of theviewthatpetitionerisentitledforappreciationof13 months over and above the value fixed" by LAC, On calculationtheamountof .interestfor13months @ 12% on Rs,96,875/- cornestoRs,12,593,75, If both the sums are added thetotalamount comes toRs.1,09,468,75 or say 1,09,500/-for a bigha."

¶9Mr Deepak Khosla ledtheteamoflawyersappearingfortheland owners and made frontal attack to the impugned award. His submissionwas thattotalrelianceon theaforesaid Government Policydated3,5.1990ignoringotherevidenceproducedbytheland ownerswas clearlyerroneous, inasmuchas by thatpolicythe Government had fixed'minimumprice foragricuiturailand '. His LAANo. 673/2008& batch Page9 of 26 ^iii. •H ii'llr iiiii; •iij iiMi;•• ^7 submissionisthat once therewas sufficientevidenceinotherforms indicatinghighermarket value,thantheoneprescribedinthesaid GovernmentPolicy,thecourtsshouldgivedueweightagetothesaid evidenceaswell, which was notdonebythelearnedADJ. He referredto theaforesaidfourdocuments. First twodocuments, namelyEx.PW-8/AandEx.PW-l/Awereproducedevenattheearlier stagebeforetheremandofthecasesbytheHighCourt. Othertwo documentswereproducedIntheformofadditionalevidenceafter theremand.

¶10HesubmittedthatasperEx.PW-8/Aitwasclearthattheratesofland inWest Delhi, evenforallotmentofalternativelandinrespectof thosewhose landhadbeenacquired,was fixedatRs.730/- per sq.nit. His argumentwasthatthoughitwas developedlandand, therefore,developmentchargescouldbedeductedtherefrom,asper theSupremeCourtjudgmentirtthecaseofLandAcquisitionOfficer, Kammarapatly Village, Nizamabad District, A.P. v. Nookaia Rajamallu&Ors., 2003(12)SCC 334,themaximum deduction whichcouldbemadewas53%andevenifthatisdone,themarket valueofthesubjectlandwould cometoRs.340/- persq.mt. As againstthis,thelandownersweregrantedcompensationofRs.l09/- persq.yd.only. i

¶11HefurthersubmittedthatEx.PW-l/Awasthedocumentasperwhich landwasallottedbytheDDAtoanotherGovernmentbodyinthe sameareawherebythelandwasallottedatRs.20lacsperacreinthe Page10 of 26 •fl ' sJ year1992whereasthecompensationgrantedto thelandownersby thelearnedADJ worked out toRs.4.65 lacsperacre. Thoughthe notificationintheinstantcasewas dated6.6.1991andevenifsome deductionswere tobemade therefrom,themarket valuewould be much higher. He further submitted that sufficientevidence was producedtoshowthatthe aforesaid landallottedtoDWSSDU was underdevelopedland. In this behalf, he referred to the evidence of PW-1, namely, Tehsildar,who had deposed thatat the timeof handingoverthe land toDWSSDU, it wasundevelopedland. He alsoreferredtothetestimonyof PW-6Shri Raj PalSingh,Sector Officer ofHorticulture Division oftheDDA, who hadbroughtthe record relating to the expenditure incurred by the DDA for developmentof the aforesaid land given to theDWSSDU as per Which totalexpenditureincurred wasaboutRs.l9lacs.Pointingout tothe statement of PW-7 Shri Prem Chand, Patwari (Land Management) inDDA, Mr. Khosia submittedthatevenasperthis witness no amountwas spent on the developmentof the said land. * Onthisbasis,hissubmissionwasthatEx.PW-l/Acouldbeconsidered I asbasisfor fixing the market value oftheland inquestion.

¶12In respectofthirddocumentrelieduponbythelearnedcounsel for the land owners, namely,Ex.PW-2/1,it was arguedthatschedule of rates fixed by theL&DOin the year 1992 for West Zone wasRs.39 lacs,which was much higher ' than the market value fixedby the learnedADJ. He also argued thatthe subject land acquired by the Governmenthadhighfuturepotentialvaluekeepinginviewthatthe LAANo.673/2008& batch Page11of 26 /— ' 4 1 r.t • surroundingareahadalreadybeendevelopedbytheDDAanditwas alsoarelevantfactor,asheldbytheSupremeCourtinthecaseof Smt. Tribeni DeviandOrs. v. The Collector,AIR1972SC1417.

¶13He alsosubmittedthat upward trend in the landrateswasclearly proved fromEx.PW-2/2to 2/4, which could not be ignored by the learnedADJ. On the aforesaid basis, the argument of learned counselappearingfor the landownerswas thatthe ratedemanded bythelandownerswas valid and justified.

¶14Mr. SanjayPoddarcounteredtheaforesaid submissionofMr. Khosia % byputtinghisdefencewith allvehemence. He relied uponcertain saledeedsproducedby therespondentswhich are Ex. R-2/1 toR-2/7. Allthesesaledeedsaredated15.6.1990andrelatetotheland in the same village. The area of landcoveredby each saledeedis2 bigha and the total sale consideration was Rs.1,94,000/- for 2 bigha. Sameisthe position in respect of allothersale deeds. On thisbasis, \ he submittedthatthe market value of the agricultural land, asis manifest from thesale deeds which areofthesameperiodwhen Section4 notification wasissued,would be Rs.97,000/- perbigha. Hissubmission wasthatwhenthedocumentaryevidencein the form of sale deed of the samevillage,same period and same land,i.e. agriculturalland was available, it was notnecessaryand/orproper to look into any otherevidence,much lessthe documentsrelatingto neighbouringvillages. Hereferredto the judgment of theSupreme Court in the case ofShakuntalabai (Smt) & Ors. v.State of lAANo.673/2008& batch Page12of 26 V I" ^4 ,Mj iirii;;, !: ! I. ,.i i 'i-I '-II" 3-^ Maharashtra, (1996)2SCC152inthisbehalf. Hefurthersubmitted thatinanycasethelandownerscouldnotrelyuponthedocuments producedbythemastheyailrelatetodevelopedlands,whereasthe landacquiredwasundeveloped. Hesubmittedthat noevidencewas lecastohowmuch amountwasspentfixingthevaluebytheDDA andL&DOetc.

¶15Inrespect ofEx.PW/2/1 to 2/4, furthersubmissionwas that L&DO hasfixedtherates,,that too of developed land, for thepurposeof i. calculatingunearnedincreasewhichcouldnotbethebasisforfixing the market value. He also argued that no evidence was producedito i • suggestthatthe acquired land had better potentiality. No evidence was led to show the comparison of the acquired land with thelands inrespectofwhich Ex.PW-8/A, PW-l/AandPW-2/1to2/4w^re issued bytheDDA/L&DO. No evidence was also led on the advantagesaswell asdisadvantages,locationorpotentiality. These documents,therefore,couldnot beconsidered,asheldbythisCourt Raj Devi &Ors.v.Unionofindia,(145)2007DLT438{LA.A.No. 417-420/2006&batchdecidedon31.7.2007}. Hefurthersubmitted thatevidenceofPWs.5, 6 & 7 was notcorrectlyreadbylearned counselforthelandowners. He, thus,contendedthatthemarket value should befixedon thebasisofsaledeeds, namelyEx.R-2/1to 2/7,as held by thisCourtinOmwatis). UnionofIndia& Ann, 2006

(90)DRJ 324{LA.ANo.94/2006& batch decided on 27.4.2006}, as per which the value would belessthan what-is awarded by the referencecourt. lAANo.673/2008&bat^h

¶16His furtlnersubmissionwas tiiat the approach of the learnedADJ in giving12%p.a.increaseontheratesfixedbytheGovernmentvide letter dated 3.5.1990 was not correct as there was noprincipleof lawthatforthepurposeofcalculatingthevalueasonthedateof notificationissuedunderSection4 of theAct it wasnecessaryinall thecasestogiveenhancement@12%p.a.,asheldbytheSupreme CourtinMehtabSingh&Ors.etc.etc.v.StateofHaryana,AIR1995 SC 667. His furthersubmissionwas thatinanycaseinOmwati (supra)theincreasewas given^11.5%andnot12%. On this premise,hepleadedforreductioninthecompensationawardedto thelandowners. .

¶17Inrejoinder,apartfromotherargumentsadvancedbyMr. Khosla, hismain pleawasthatthesaledeedsproducedbytherespondent ^ alsocouldnot beconsideredastheyrelatetosmallparcelofland. 3( 'i h namely,2bigha,which was preciselythereasonforthisCourtto discardthesaledeedsproducedbythelandownersinitsorderdated ^f!i: i 'j ' i . •I- .

24.5.2005.

¶18We haveconsideredtheaforesaidsubmissionsoflearnedcounselfor thepartieswith referencetotherecordofthesecasesandthe ; evidenceproduced. We may firstdiscussthedocumentsonwhichi • • "i r relianceisplacedbythelearnedcounselappearingfortheland owners .

¶19Itisnotindisputethatnoneofthesedocumentsrelatetothelandin villageKakrola. Itisalsonotindisputethatallthesedocuments lAANo. 673/2008 & batch Page14of 26 i; ic 'i i V_ ^]} il'H t ' 1 ' Hi relatetofullydevelopedarea. Infact,exceptEx.PW-l/A, which relatestoallotmentoflandbytheDDAtoDWSSDU,withwhichwe shalldeal withseparately,otherdocumentsconcernthe areawhichis constructedareaandthedevelopmentwas undertakenlongago. Mr. Poddar isalsorightinhissubmissionthat none of thewitnesses have been examined tocomparetheadvantages, potentiality, situationofthe landInquestionvis-a-visthese documents. In Jasrath V. UnionofIndiaandUnionofIndiav.RanbirSingh&Ors., (130) 2006DLT700,thisCourthadrefusedto act uponsuchdocuments, whichismanifestfromthefollowingobservationscontainedtherein:- "40.Having heard.thelearnedCounsel appearingforthe parties at some length on this aspect of the matter, we have no hesitationincomingto theconclusionthat thebrochureEx.X cannotbetreatedasadeterminativefactorfordeterminingthe fairmarketvalueof theacquiredlandat therelevanttimebut itcertainlyisa relevantpieceofevidence,which the court would havetoexamineparticularlyinrelationtopotential, locationandotheraspects.Itwouldalsobearelevantpieceof evidencetoshovwhat kindofpriceswere prevailinginthe adjacentareaswhichwerefullydevelopedand that thelandin question had been acquired for completing the larger residentialschemeofRohini byprovidingessentialamenities i.e.sewagesystenn.drainageandwatertreatmentplant.Thus, Ex.Xcannotbe excluded from the zone of consideration for ultimatelydecidngthisissue.As farastherespondentsare concerned they can hardly deny thesaiddocument andallthat hasbeenarguedonbehalfoftherespondentisthatitisaprice of adevelopedareaandthusisnotcomparableasitincludes various elemenis of costing. Both thesesubmissions are factuallycorrectbutasalreadynoticedthisdocumentisa desirableindicatorinrelationtovariousfactorsessentiallyto beconsideredbvthecourtintermsoftheabovejudgment, therefore,Ex.Xhas to be looked into andtreatedas a relevant pieceofevidencebutcertainlynot adeterminativeevidence forfixingthemarket.value of thelandinquestion and particularly when otherdirect evidence by way of sale instancesand judicialpronouncements in relation to the acquiredlanditselfareavailableonrecord. XX XX XX

44.Theclaimant alsoclaimthat the smaller plots in the same vicinitycanberhadethebasisforfixationofrateforlarger LAANo.673/2008&batch nsk Pagg15of26 ifH area acquired and thereisno prohibition in law. The Courtis requiredtofixreasonableandfairmarket value in terms of Section23 of theAct and for this purpose they haveplaced relianceon the judgment of theSupremeCourt in thecaseof Ravinder Narain andAnr.v. Union of India (2003) 4SCC481.

¶45Thepotentialof the land as on thedateof acquisition is a relevantfactorandin some casescouldformmajor basis for considering the claim of the claimants.The development charges would be deducted only for compensation being grantedfor adevelopedland and theCourt hastotake into considerationthe future potential on account of its location. In this regard,reliancehas been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofHasanaliWalimchand (dead) by Lrs.V. State ofMaharashtra (1998) 2SCC388wherethe Court heldasunder:-

¶6The High Court has noticed in the impugned judgment and order that the"location"of the land indicatesthat ithasbuildingpotential butfellinto an error in ignoring that factor by observing : Thereisno record of any income being received by any ofthelandowners.These landsmust, therefore,be valued as agricultural land with no potentiality whatsoeverintheforeseeablefuture

¶7We are unable to find any justification for such observation andfinding.The above finding of theHigh Courtiscontradictoryto the earlier finding based on the locationoftheland.It isnodoubtcorrectthatthe referencecourtwas influenced by sale transactionsin respect of developed land and itfailedto make any deductionfordevelopmentof land while enhancing the compensation, but the High Court fellinto error in ignoringthe future potential of the land inquestionand insteadrestingitsfindingasrealizedpotential only. The evidence on the record clearly establishes thatthe acquired land did have future potential on account of its location.It isnotdeniedthattheareaaroundthecityof Ahmednagarisfastdeveloping and the land inquestion was located only at a short distance ofaboutone and a halfmilesfrom Ahmednagartown,

¶48We havediscussedin great detail thatExh.X and Exh.X-1 even read in conjunction with Resolution dated 24th December. 1980 are relevantfactors for determining the potential, location and as aguidingfactor to the value of the surrounding land to the acquired land.Thisbyitselfcannot be treated to be a determinative factor for awarding compensation to theclaimants.Infactfor variedreasons,we would decline to fix compensation on the basis of this brochure. Firstly, theclaimants have failedto lead any supportingevidenceinthatbehalf.Nowitness hascomeand J5;? LAANo. 673/2008& batch Page16 of 26 i 'li s: ! • t ]; •[ -li if -'.t'ii Statedthattheacquiredlandisidenticallysituatedandhasthe samefacilitieslikethe land covered underExh.X.Furtherthere isnodirectevidenceofcomparablelandsand/ortheland havingidenticalpotentialtothelandcoveredunderthe scheme.Onusofthiskindwascertainlyupontheclaimantsand theyhave failedtodischarge theironus inthisregard. Secondly,thevaluationfixedbythisCourt onthebasisof Exh.Xinitsearlierjudgmentdated4thSeptember,2001has alreadybeensetasidebytheSupremeCourt v^ithspecific observationthattheHighCourthadfalleninerrorinfixingthe market valueofthelandonthebasisofExh.X.Thirdly,in variouscasestheSupreiTieCourthasalreadystatedthelav\/that compensationofanundevelopedlandcannotbedecidedon thesolebasisoftheratesrelatabletothedevelopedland, particularlywhenotherevidenceisavailableonrecord."

¶20Moreover, insofaras scheduleofratesfixed bytheL&DO is i ' - concerned,notonlythatisinrespectoffullydevelopedresidential, cot^mercialandindustrialplots,thepurposeforfixingthoseratesis i tojarriveatunearnedincrease.InKdranSingh&Ors.v.Unionof India,55 [\99A)DLT 511,thisCourt hadnotacceptedidentical evidenceforfixingthemarket valueholdingthatitwas nota relevantpieceofevidenceforthispurpose. Followingobservations in thisbehalfwouldbeapposite "17. We arenotsatisfiedthatproductionofcopyofschedule ofratesonlyfixedbytheMinistry ofWorks andHousing (Land Division) will be relevant piece of eviderice for deteritiiningthemarket valueandultimatelyassessingthe amountofcompensationundertheActwhentherearewell known principles for determining the amount of compensation.Thewell knownprinciplesareai<sibitucedin Koyappathodi v. StateofKerala (AIR1911 SC 2027) as follows: "Itissettled law that the methods of valuation to be adoptedinascertainingthemarketvalueofthelandason the date of thenotificationare(i)opinion of experts(ii) thepricepaidwithin areasonabletimeinbonafide transactionofthepurchaseorsaleof thelandsacquiredor • thelandsadjacentto thelandsacquiredor thelands adjacentto thelandsacquiredand possessing similar advantagesand(iii)anumberofyearspurchaseofthe actualorimmediatelyprospectiveprofitsof thelands acquired.Thesemethods, however,do notprecludethe lAA No.673/2008& batch Mi 2\. • Court from taking any other special circumstances obtainedinanappropriatecaseintoconsideration.Asthe objectbeingalwaysasnearaspossibleinanestimateof themarketvalueinarrivingat areasonablecorrectmarket value,itmay benecessarytotakeeventwoorallthose matters intoaccountinasmuchastheexactvaluationis notalwayspossibleasnotwolandsmay bethesame .eitherinrespectofthesituationortheextentorthe potentialitynorisitpossibleinallcasestohavereliable material fromwhich thatvaluationcanbeaccurately determined." TheaforesaidjudgmenthasbeenaffirmedbytheSuprerneCourtin KaranSingh&Ors. etc.v.UnionofIndia,(1997)8SCC186. We may alsonotethatinthecaseofU.P.JaiNigam, Lucl<nowthrough itsChairman&Ann v.M/s. Kaira Properties(P)Ltd., Lucknow& Ors.,AIR1996SC1170,theSupremeCourtdidnotfindfavourwith theargumentthatthemarketvalueofthelandbefixedonthebasis ofcircleratefixedbytheCollectorfor thepurposeoflevyofstamp duty.SimilarviewistakenbytheApexCourtinRanvirSingh&Ann V. UnionofIndia,(2005)12SCC59. V • " .I '•-[Hi..

¶22Thisleavesuswith one document,stronglyreliedupon by the land owners,namely,Ex.PW-l/A, asperwhich the landisallottedto DWSSDU in the year1992atRs.20 lacsperacre. However, the distinguishingfeatureisthat the land covered by the transaction was of anothervillage,namely,Najafgarh, Itisalsonot indispute,and in factaccepted by the appellants ' ownwitness, thatthisvillagewas urbanizedprior to1974. On the contrary, the land of the land ownerswhich isacquired andfallsin village Kakrola was never urbanized under theprovisionsofSection507 of theDelhiMunicipal CorporationAct. The land owners have also not led anyevidence LAANo.673/2008& batch 3^ i t • 1: . I V ' '!f .'il'.!-!!' :hi i| i•• • whichwouldevincethatboththelandsarecomparable.Asalready mentionedabove,thepriceofdevelopedlandcannotbecompared withtheunderdevelopedland.Nodoubt,thelandownershave producedthreewitnesses, namelyPWNos. 5to7,onthebasisof which itwas soughttobe arguedthattherewas hardlyany i. • . expsnditureincurredbytheDDAonthedevelopmentofthisland. However,whereasPW-5,DeputyDirector,NewLeaseBranch,DDA I • , hasmentioned thatthelandinquestionwas apondwhich was transferredtoHorticultureDepartmentof theDDAandHorticulture Department hadputfencingofthatlandandalsoplantedplants I thetieon. Hehasalsostated that some amount was spent by the HorticultureDepartmentforcompletionofthoseworks buthewas notawareof theactualexpenditure. PW-6,SectionOfficer from Horticulture Division, on the other hand, produced PW-l/A collectively as well as Annexures PW-l/l to1/6 showingthe expenditureincurred. Thesedetailswould indicatethatasumof Rs.9,06,806/-was incurred on labour. Theannexurewouldindicate I thatthisexpenditurecomprisesof thewagespaid tobeldarfor work of Mali and watch&. ward. Otherannexureindicatingexpenditure of Rs.1,74,058/- reflectsthatthatamountwas spent on fencing, I installationof hand pump, pump set andsupplyofplants. Another sheet, which demonstrates total expenditure of Rs.8,30,097/- towardssupply ofgoodearth, manure,sinkingof tube well,fencing, i sprinklers and the like. However, these expensescannot be indicative ofthetotalamountspent as for getting the aforesaidwork LAANo. 673/2008&b^tch lii, ' donepermanentstaffoftheHorticulture Branch isalsorequired. Howmuchamountoutofthesalariespaidtothemistobecharged tothisprojectcannotbeascertainednoranyevidencetothateffect is led." There would be other infrastructuraland overhead expenditure. Therefore, much credencecannotbegiventothe aforesaidamountspent.

¶23Alsoforthereasonswehaveindicatedaboutthe otherdocuments,it would notbesafetorelyuponEx. PW-l/Atoarriveatthemarket value of the land at the relevantperiod. I

¶24Therefore^inviewof theaforesaiddiscussion,we are of theopinion that theaforesaiddocumentscannotformthebasisforfixingthe marketvalue of the land. At the same time, thesewouldbe relevant piecesofevidencefromthepointofviewofpotential,locationand effectofprevalentpriceofdevelopedlandsurroundingtheacquired land. Inthisbehalf,wemay quoteagainfromtheDivision Bench judgmentofthisCourtin thecaseofJasrath(supra) V "49.. BesidesthefactthatExh. Xcannotbetakentobe a determinativeevidenceforfixingthemarketvalue of theland butit;iscertainlyarelevantpieceof.evidencewhichtheCourt woulB havetolookintowhile determiningthecontroversy betweenthepartiesfromthepointofviewofpotential, locationandeffectofprevalentprice ofdeveloped land surroundingtheacquiredland. With theseobservations,we would rejecttheplea of theclaimantsthatcompensation should be determinedexclusivelyon thebasisofExh.X."

¶25Normally, thesaleinstancesoftheacquiredlandarebestpieceof evidence and ifsuchevidenceisavailable,that can bereliedupon for thepurposeoffixationofthemarketvalue. As pointedoutabove, lAANo.673mOR&.batch Page20 of 26 ';i i i • Ml. V Mr. Poddar,learnedcounselfortherespondents,relied.uponcertain sale;deeds(Ex.R-2/1to2/7). At.thesametime,itisalsonotpossible toi^elyuponsaledeedsproducedbytherespondentsintheformof j Ex.:R-2/lto2/7. Thesemay be7saledeedsinrespectof 2bighas each,buttheyareofthesamedate,whichmeansthatthesearethe I saiddeedsof averysmallarea. When onanearlieroccasionthe market valueofthelandwas fixedonthebasisoftwosaledeeds produced bythelandowners,thisCourt vide itsorderdated

24.5.2005discardedthesameonthegroundthattheywererelated to;asmallarea,which isclearfromthefollowingobservations ! therein on "10. Theaforesaidclearlyshowsthat in so farasExhibitPW-4/1isconcerned, the same has been executed for a peculiar requirement of thepurchaser,who did not have sweet water for that purposepurchasedasmallpieceof land forirrigation of the land located nearby. Thiscan hardly be taken asbasis fordeterminationof the land value in view ofthepeculiar factsinwhichtheSaleDeedwasexecuted.

¶11In so far asExhibitPW-1/1isconcerned,the peculiarfacts have been set out. The landismeasuringonly one bigha and in thecircumstances setoutin respect of whichthatdocumenthas beenexecuted,'weareoftheconsideredviewthatit isnot possible todeterminethemarketvalue of a large track of land measuring more than 8723 bighason thebasisonly, of that document." Once we reject the sale deeds producedby the land owners, the parity of reasoning itisdifficultto accept the sale deeds producedby therespondents,which also relate tosmall piece(s) of land.

¶26Where does the aforesaiddiscussionleads to? Obviously, neither the evidencerelieduponby the landownersnorthesale deeds relied LAANo. 673/2008 &batch Page21of 26 -L i-L a V h h. :l,i-- Ir'MJ j . il. uponbytheUOl canbethefoundationformeasuring themarket value. At leasttheycannotbetakento bedeterminativeevidence forfixingthemarketvalue. However,theirotherrelevancyinterms ofJasrath(supra)shallbetakenintoconsiderationappropriately.

¶27Thisleadsourdiscussionto thepolicyletterdated3.5.1990of the GovernmentofIndiafixingminimum priceofagriculturalland.The learnedADJ forthispurposereferredto thejudgmentofthisCourt inthecaseoi Omwati(supra)whereintheSupremeCourthadmade thefollowingobservationsquasuchpolicydecisionsfixingminimum valueoftheland "15. Such policydecisions of the government cannot be treatedas a substantive piece of evidence. They aredocuments prepared by the Government after due verification and surveys, but the documents itself does not refertoany distinct piece of evidence which was considered by thegovernmentfor determiningthe minimum price payable for acquisition of agricultural land. At the same time, this policy decision of the Government cannot be treated to be either entirely inadmissibleor irrelevant for the purpose of determining the controversyin issue. This reflectstheconsciousdecisionofthe appropriategovernmentnottoallow registration ofthesale deeds, wherein theagriculturallandsanywhereinDelhi are proposedto be soldbelowthespecified rate i.e. Rs.4.65 lacs per acre (i.e.Rs.1,11,778,84per bigha). This value was fixed in the year 1990. We do not intend to say that thegovernmentis boundby this price and the petitioners must get this price, but with suchvariationsthatare permissible in law, thiswould be somekind of a guideline forthecourttoarrive at justandfair marketvalueofthelandattherelevanttime."

¶28Itis,thus, clearthatsuch policy decisionsoftheGovernmentcannot betreatedas substantive piece ofevidence. No doubt, in the absence of any other cogent evidence produced, which would indicatethemarket value oftheland inquestion,theCourtcan rely uponsuch policy decision. We also should not be unmindful of the LAA No.673/2008& batch ,1 : I r-< iij f • t .li factthat theratefixedintheaforesaidpolicydecision isthe 'minimumprice 'oftheagriculturalland.Therefore,itwouldonly providesomekindofaguidelineforthecourttoarriveatjustand fairmarket value of the land at the relevant time. When other evidenceisproduced,thoughcannotbemade thebasisoffixing market value,that atleastwould indicatethat themarket valueof thelandwas higherthantheaforesaidminimum pricefixedbythe Government. Therefore, some latitudetowardsthathas to be given in arriving at fair market value.

¶29Thoughwe havealreadynoted above thatdocumentsreliedupon by the land owners cannot be considered as determinative evidence forfixingthe market value of the land, but their relevancyisstillto be kept in mind from thepointof view ofpotential,location and effectof prevalentpricesof the developed landsurroundingthe acquired land and this much peep into these documents is permissible. When we look into the documents fromthisangle,it becomes clear that the landprice,even ofagriculturalland orinthe saidvicinity, was more, than theminimum price fixedby the Government initspolicydated 3.5.1990. i • ii

¶30We are, therefore, of the opinion that the landownerswould be entitled to thecompensationatratesmarginallyhigherthan therates fixedby theGovernmentvide policy dated 3.5.1990 and it would be safeto add 10% more value than the onefixedby the Government indicatingtheminimum price. LAANo.673/2008&batch nsk Page23of26 :|^ i 'l .ill '"!! n ] i •I . I f

¶31Itwouldbeofinteresttonotethatifweapplyanotheryardstickand lookintothematterfromanotherangle,wemayarriveatthesame result. As noted above, therespondentshaveheavilyreliedupon saledeedswhichare of 2bighaseach. As perthesesaledeeds,the saleconsideration for 2bighas was Rs.1,94,000/-. However, Rs.15,520/-was spent on the stamp duty, etc.aswell,which hasto be added to thesaleprice. Afteradding that amount, thepriceof 2 bighawould beRs.2,09,520/-. Onthisbasis,valueof onebigha wouldbe Rs.1,04,760/-. tf we take the saledeedsintoconsideration, which areof 2bighaseach,thesaledeedsproducedbytheland ownerswillalsohavetobetakenintoconsideration.Asperthesale deeddated4.1.1989,foronebighathesalepricewasRs.1,60,000/-. When wetakeaverageofthetwosaledeeds,oneproducedbythe laneownersandtheotherbytherespondents,theamountwould work outtolittlemore thanRs.l,20,000/-. We may.clarify that thesesale deeds are not made thebasis of awarding the compensationastheyarediscardedonthegroundthattheyrelateto smallareaofland. Theonlypurposewas topointoutthatthe marketvaluefixedbyusatRs.l,20,500/-would bereasonable.

¶32Theonlyquestionthatremainstobeconsideredisastowhetherthe trialcourtwasrightingivingappreciationthereupon@12%p.a.for aperiodof13 months, inasmuchas,thepolicyletterisdated

3.5.1990whereas Section4notificationisof6.6.1991. Mr. Poddar arguedthatinthecaseofMehtab Singh(supra),theSupremeCourt hadi indicatedthatitwas notnecessaryinallthecasestogive LAANo.673/2008&batch nsk Pagg24of26 ! i ' !'I'l !• • it! enhancement@12%p.a.However,Mr. Khosla,learnedcounselfor thelandowners,rightlypointedoutthatthecommentsofthe SupremeCourtinthatcasewereinrespectofthelandinHaryana. Position inDelhi istotallydifferent. Ithasbeenestablishedon record,judicialnoticewhereof istakeninvariousjudgments,that thereisaconsistentupwardtrendinthemarket ratesoflandsin Delhi. Itisfor this reasonthatinnumberof judgments, this Court hasacceptedtheformulaofincreaseofrates^12%p.a. We may againreferto theearlierordersdated24.5.2005passedinthese appealswhile remandingthecasebackto thelearnedADJ. The aforesaidGovernment policywas taken note of by the Division Bench andfollowingpertinentobservationswere made inrespect thereof "7. The aforesaid referred toGovernment policy has been considered by this Court in Tei Ram v. Union of India & Anr.. Ill(2004)DLT 465for fixation ofthelandvalue. It may, however, benoticedatthisstagethat in the presentcase,the acquisitionisabouta year later of fixation of the land price, whichwouldrequireappropriateenhancement."

¶33Thus, the court had opined even at that stage that appropriate enhancementwill be required.Thisispreciselythecourse ofaction adoptedbythelearnedADJ. We are, therefore,oftheopinionthat the land owners would be entitled to appreciation of13months @ 12% p.a. and the learnedADJ rightlydeterminedthe market value onthatbasis.

¶34On this reckoning, we are of theopinionthatthe market price of the land inquestionas on3.5.1990shouldbeRs.96,875+Rs.9,685. In LAANo. 673/2008 &batch Page25 of 26 i. ii r

¶35this manner, as on 3.5.1990, themarket value would be Rs.t,06,560/-. We areoftheopinionthatthelearnedADJ rightly heldthatappreciationof13months @12%istobegiven. By applyingthisformula,market valueofthelandasonthedateof notificationunderSection4 of theAct would beRs.1,20,500/-per bigha. In(hesecircumstances,theappealsofthelandownersarepartly allowed by enhancingthecompensationfromRs.1,09,500/- to Rs.1,20,500/-..Theseappealsareallowedintheaforesaidmanner withproportionatecosts.Theappellantsshallalsobeentitledtoall i i otKerstatutorybenefits,asawardedbythelearnedADJ. All the I pendingapplicationsalsostanddisposedof. As aconsequence,the appealspreferredby theUOlarealsodismissed. (MANMOHANSINGH) JUDGE TAXTIKW) JUDGE October4.1,2008 IShs151f I.AANo. 673/2008& batch Mt