Yogender Kumar & Anr v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 nrinri ft IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ludament Judgment DeliverRciOn: igti Spni-f^mber.20 77 'erved On: August. 2ml + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH u ••• Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia,Advocate and Mr.N.S.IMegi,Advocate. /s. UOI & ANOTHER Respondents -ru^ t ^ . "• lUfcJflLb Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate & Mr.Sa Nawani, Kaomudi njay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AND t ^ 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2010 & lm LA^ipP CM No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2013 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/7nTl 248/2011,(^.APP.^98/2011 375/2011, DOSPP. J86/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. 1036/2010&CM~No:i286572^0n,LAApSoII L^APP 6/2011.&CM NO.6756/2011, LA APP Sli^ « 11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. LA.A^. 161/2011, LA.APP. PP. 247/2011, LA.APP. •APP. 3.47/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/S, Award No, 06/2002-2003, Villaec. dated

15.09.2000 & ge-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)' A^ D LA.App.No.999/2010&cpmectedmatte|i-s I •, iftn, • liin + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 83/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011,. LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 244/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 (Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi COMM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Wiiether the Reporters of to see the judgment? CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. ^2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011,LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011& CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011,, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. 'Sec. 4 dated

30.07.1998: iage-Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri) local papers may be allowed

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment sh Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. ould be reported Jn the I proceed with an apolog/to the reader by referringto a notification issued, later in notification issued prior in poir learned counsel for arguments with respect to the required price to be sui^tab Doint of time then to a t of time; but the reason is that land owners had addressed notification issued later and had y reduced pertaining to notificationwhich was issued earlier in point of time.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswajahafigirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 2 of22 .(fill r to a notification dated

15.09 2000 issued under Sect-f the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. T tIs was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following due process, announced his award bearing the. Land Acquisition Collector 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 bigh lal<hs per acre i.e. fair marl<et at ?13.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land a, which is equivalent to n3.82 i/alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or ssessment made by Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/9. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired ^14,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition'Collector as well c while assessing the fair marl s the Learned. Reference Court, :et value of the acquired land. adopted the minimum price for agriculturalland fixed by the Government as on

01.04.20C 0, notified .vide Circular dated

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

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of ithe Land Acquisition Act wa,s issued on

15.09.2000, but the .learned Reference Court gra nted 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!999/201.0& connected mat:ers /il

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue estate of village Bhalswa 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 of the Act issued on. 04.08. process, the Land Acquisition by a declaration under Section 1998. After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001,' whereby he assessed fair market v ^2,33,333 per bigha which is acre. 6, Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land alue of the acquired land at equivalent to m.20 lakhs .per destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the .the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated

25.7.1997 ssessment made by Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The l.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.inA/2008 titled Chandrawati I/?. Union of India, assessed the fair marketvalue of the acquired land at ?11,46,670/- per acre. The difference i in same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. lollector adopting the land rate, with effect from, 1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment m LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedniat:ers 11% per annum for iA^ell as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference Page 4 of22 • -ft i\, !! y Court by way of tlie appeals above.

¶8On behalf of land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance we s placed on following documentary evidence:-

(a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification and cross objections mentioned dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed, its intention to respect of developed properties owned by libit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in "esidential commercial 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 3swa Jahangir Puri, was fixed ' eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per acre it was urged that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should . be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of , fl,17,96,200/- per acre.

(b) The rate charged by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution No.705 dated

23.11.1987 . (Exhibit PW-3/1), wherebyMCD decided to allot transporters (S •?425/- per 3it PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport ' are metre were urged to be be close to village Bhala at.^5830/- per square m developed plots to the square meter Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ?4,500/- per sqi material good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters • Page 5 of22 documents, learned ,cc argued that rate unsel for land owners stated in the . resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made on account of the r undeveloped Jands, fair market value would corfie to .^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasingthe same by 12% per. •annum, the fair market value, as of 15.9.2000 would be f24,76,592/-per acre,

(c) Learned counsel for the land owners also placed reliance on the auction record of plots iri Rohini ResidentialScheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/: on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met ranging between ?23.7:^ would evidence that fai land comes to ?17,19,85 that even if 50% deducti development costs, fo bigha was sold @ ?3 learned counsel urged th and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, "the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square •e in Jahangir Purl at a price lakh to T28.4 lakh, which according to. learned coinsel translates to a price of ?14,36,36,363. per acre: and counsel urged, that Id 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^ 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to ?56,93,163/- or ?11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected niat:ers

¶9contended that this sale after making a reas development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri., Another. deed should be relied upon, onable deduction towards ermine the fair market value ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000

(E)<;hibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in Mamurpur was sold to R upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society .'M/s.Butterfly', w village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o' the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay . appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2: in village Bhalswa Jahangir revenue estate of village .adha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- p ^r acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned counsel fc r the land owners also relied iell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a 'hereund.er 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 Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^pddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land 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 notificationunderSection.4 comes to ?1,94,782per bigha, and thus it was argued that since price,ofsimilar land is available in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoiningvillage or to adopt ihe price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected raat;ers -llf fixing tine marl<et value of tnaving a vast area. Learne learned Land Acquisition C market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 and undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the Dllector has assessed. fair price much higher than the one so has the learned Reference Court. -

¶10It may be noted that whsn judghient was reserved in the 19'^'' August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition above captioned matters on been reserved for, judgment appeals, lead matter being LA submitted , that in response^ counsel for the land owners advanced on earlier oc response.

¶11The topography of villcige Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the depositionof Shh Thlok Chand {HalqaPatwari) Who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled7?g/5//7a/7 Vs UnionofIndiain which he has explainedthe topologyof the area while proving the A!<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa jahangirPuh. His testimonyvyould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated,in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burahare situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadli and Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puh. .App.No.266/2008 titled Jai Sinah l/s. UOL&Anr. in which similararguments as Were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned seniiDr counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to arguments of learned the arguments, which he had :asion may be treated as his West and villages Bharola n the South of village Jahangir LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matti:ers Page 8 of22

12., I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published by • the Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purr is situated on.the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NationalHighwayNo.l. VillagesBadii, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, MamoorDur.(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 villageJahangirPuri, post acquisition of agricultural Ian village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in •potential price increased due :is in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e, the the area was of a kind where to. urbanization, was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sihoh I/5. Union nf India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 46'i, resettlement colony called Jah it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period cf emergencyi.e.,the year 1975-

¶76It has to be rememberedthat the two subjectacquisitions were also for re-settlement of,;5lumand J.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008lai Sinah V.^. um ^ MjI which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronouncedon 19.8.2011, whein instant appeals were reserved for judgment,has since been pronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 arid I. would highlight that v\ hile assessing the fair market value of the land situated in !.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-Wes villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Bawana, I had noted t t Delhi being revenue estate of Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, , Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd Tat the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 9 of22 ..constituted a 'V at the point of intersection where G.f.Karnai .Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtai< Road i.e. NH-IO.bifurcated at a common point,, proceeding in different directions, at Sa.bzi iviandi. It needs to be highlightedthatvillageBhalswaJahahgir L-Puri is outsidethe 'V aforesciidand as explainedhereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-l.

¶15In the.appeals relatingto the said 10 villageswhere land were acquired pursuant to different notifications,issued from time to time 1had dealt with notificationsissued in the year In those cases, learned counsel Biied upon the sale deed dated ^1) sale deed dated 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. for the land owners had re

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/ .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 judgmentdated 23.8.2011,I have discardedthese IS recorded in,paragraphs 21 to under:- two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced here

¶21The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh per the former, fair ma comes to ?26.75 lakhs ^63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected evidence to determine fair market value agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Badha Swami Sats5;ng' had tendered sale ... d'eposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005Ta^d'stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religiouspurpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale dee is predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4.2001. As rket value for the former per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable of the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was js trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while d Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matt{!rs been held not to be reli fair market . value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated pay the price for, the sai^ only plot of the requ requirement,of the orga for destitute women circumstance, personal t

¶22As held in the dec Organization" and as per ster Annie, the secretary of :hat the organization had to :i piece of land as it was the site size suitable for, the nization and is being used .e. there was a special 0 the vendee. sions reported as 1995 (1) SCZJin land AcquisitionOfficerEtum Ore; 1/5. I y-* Ai /»-» / C A .J — isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer, jVIohd. Raufuddin L para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 's. Land Acquisition Off!rpr ansactions evidenced in a • ilered in evidence by virtue A.Act 1894 have not to be (Refer para 13) sale :tr sale, deed which are ten of Section 51A of the L. ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market v reason there may which have led the buye alue of land in an area for be special circumstances . - T to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informedseller \A/fhh/^i i-f-I , need by any special cy to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all without being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bi studied the'market available land in the area; has understood the topologyof the area and the prevailingprices, if a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index offair market value ofthe lands in the area. Iwould be failing if Ido not highlightthat the 9n'? deed dated 20 5.2002, which was accepted by the learned O? f'"'fnn?Court pertainingto the notificationdated

27.1.2003,where-underagriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan .was. sold by , an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. ^17,74,109/- price which comes to T63.478 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 Ex.PW-1/2 and .Ex.PW-1/3 intrinsic evidence of the destroy eacli otiier. o, themselves are having fanciful price and ex-facie

¶23Tilus, apart from t ie reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para a rea.sons to , hold that advisably not be gooc market value of subjec Jbove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair , :t lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make.all the more a . reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsicevidenceof the transactionbeing the result of a fancy of the buyer, I would be failing not to note an unreported. decision cited by learned counsel Sh.I.S.Dahiya being decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (snipe, deceased) thru LRs Vs. IJOf & Qrs. It was highlightedthat the sale deed,therein by which L&T had purchased 8 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 suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in tie instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as tl'e basis to determine fair marketvalue. The argumentignoresthe reasoning in the decisionof the Division Bench in paras 37 to .38 wherein the Division,Bench;, did not accept the value in the sale deed-bn its own logicas 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 wo jld be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatt©ii-s ,01 ifTTfi produced by the Govern ^1,3,7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas iment were giving a price of sale deed under ;2d the land gave the price f3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of . ^2,15,160/- per bigha, f 1/3would be deducted from the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the sale was. 1993 a Section

¶4of the Land ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995

16.11,1995 Court determinedfair marketjalueas of the saiddates at same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ?2,15,160/-. In other v\ Division Bench is not t meaningfully. It is not sale deed in question a appreciation for 2 ords, the reasoning of the ) be read pedantically but that the Court treated 5 the basis for if it was so, years had required to be hereinbefore already contradiction in the vah the 2 sale deeds and th given. I would highlight once again, that I have noted • inherent le of the land price as per s itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value." ,16. For,the reasons therein, I rejecfthese two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to i . • , determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the a Jahangir Puri has been agreed f ?18 lakhs per acre". The land land situated in village Bhalsvv to be transferred for a sum c owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16;bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at n5,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^15,70,000/- per acre as on 01^07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters difficult to comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8;4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzlethat in 1996 the price was ^18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ?15.7 lakhs per acre'. I ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the • learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ...special considerations n informed willing buyer , without being influenced by particular land, and had thus informed and there being a s have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with ned that the said price was for 3t the price settled between an an informed willing seller special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision dated

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008/a/5/77(7/7 1/9. IJOI ^ Anr i.e. where ah abnormally high p[ice for a parcel of land is with evidence, of neither the buyer nor the seller being well-pecial feature qua the land and good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. 1reite

¶20As regards. auction rat situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argymen land owners concur wit "ate the same. es of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, I do not find ts of the learned counsel for the h the decision of the learned .ReferenceCourt containedin paragraphs29 and 30 which are premisedoh the decisionof th-B.SupremeCourt reportedas Lai LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters , j-Cfiand ys. Union of India 20 reasoning: pertaining to tlie e ofTesidential plots or flats by

¶21In my decision dated iai Sinaii Vs. UOi & Ors.. I he )9 (15) see 769./Sinnilar is the ^/idence relating to auction rates DDA.

3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 d extensively discussed the law declared, by the Supreme eourt in Z.a/ Ciiands case , with reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DDA an eveloped plots were allotted; by d DSlDe. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in 7g/'5//7a/7's case are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted lar d sold by DSlDCIor DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDe and Narela Residential Scheme developed' .,"v by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num • Supreme eourt in Lai / render this evidence as ; the value of land in the 5 , 30. It is no doubt true, .Reference eourt, that Bawana Industrial Area and Nareia Residential S acquired, a building pc , would be what would : : building potentiality woul 20% or 75%, we do not know.; has resulted in same Der which were noted by, the ^hand's case (supra), which , most unreliable to determine ubject cases.- ;' * • • ' • -A as held even by the learned with deyelopment of Rohini Residential Scheme: zherae, the subject lands had , tentiality, but question; be value to which th?' d translate itself., ^ 31; ; 1 hold that the learried Reference eourt, keeping in view observation findings of the : Supreme Court in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said eyidfnee ^s reliable. On the issue of potentialityrelating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, t(3 deal with the s,ame while jl; shall be discussing as to what should ;be the fai,r market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 15 pf 22

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chancfs case (supra) I • • ; I Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless was too . inchoate wherefrorn fair market value could be crystallized. • "

¶23, I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when leaie-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 m La/ Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed discarded with where lands were acquired for reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I r egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok.Chand (Halka Patwar NO.112A/2008 it. emerges tha' village. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil and Burari are separated by t ) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC : village Burari is on the.east of indeed the, plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri he outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka . Chowk,,from the. Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Jurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters 'Ip •f) thus the fair market value of two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessing the fair in village Burarl, which was a dated

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, 1 record i.e. evidence ii land on a particular date in the market value of the land situated cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of lad considered the material on my decision pronounced, on

7.6.2011 in a batch of,LA./ippeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008titled Rajba!& Ors. Vs. Union of India & 3d assessed the fair market value ,580.82 per acre for Category A land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464.65per acre for Category C land pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuantto notification dated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at n9,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ^17,28,512/-per jai. Singh's case [supra), I had Ors, In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60 acre for Category B land. I.r assessed the fair marketvalue ofland in 10 villagesas under:- , S.No. Village Name Dat uhc e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8. 2000 ^4.75 for Category . ?14.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 ^ w i jr ^14.75 ,3. Bawana

7.8. 2000 ^14.75 for Category 'A' n4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd . 1—' {r> ).2000 ,^^4.835 for .Category 'A' r?14.46413 for Category 'B'' EA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmatte|rs / i, ^ 'i ? fils .5. Nareia

2.f .2001 ^6.165 , for : Category 'A' ?15-.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6. Holambi Kaian 22, 8.2001 ' n6.745 for . Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

7.. Alipur

¶228.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' ^16.43811 for Cateqorv 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 ^

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

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B' -10. Sanoth

7.12.2001 ^17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 . n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶13Holambi Kaian

23.5.2002 T18.655

¶14Alipur.

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶271.2003 ?19.435 for Category 'A' n8.94:912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Ka ah

27.; L.2003 n9.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category 'C

¶27In lai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhancec to time, and found the same by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojinected matters Government 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 AC Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah l/s. UQ! ^ 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander l/s. um. m

(2004) 95 Hukum Sinah l/s. UP! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005'Mahender Sinoh Vs. UQ/ & Qrs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determinedon variousdates betweenthe years 1993 to 1996 and in relationto the minimum pricefixed by the GovernmentI had highlighted in paras 50 to'53 of the said decision as under:- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the various notificationsissued from •time to time by the Governmentof IMCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Del from the year 1990. As f4;.6,5 lakhs per acre whi li over the years commencing •f 27.4.1990 minimum price was ch 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 1 th^ average price increa rise over the next l .yea 11% for the next 2 years

15.054% increase in 7 years and e would be 16.436%. The price r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It. shows that due to urbanization, between the year 199C sharply and good corrot be the decision of the Galrats case (supra), wh above. • '

¶51I'need to elaborate decision in Gairafs, ca and 1997 prices grows fairly orative evidence for this would Division Bench of this Court, in ich 1 have discussed in para 49 a little more with respect to the se. Discussing 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.999/2010& connectedmatters I' I ' • '1 i 'I,:/ the_ Court discussed ijlie valuation on the basis of agriculturalyield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigationfacilities and thusi'capitalizedthe per acre. Discussing the second land price at ?9.5 lakhs method of land prices of comparabie lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instancesand giving benefit of industrializationthe land price would come to no,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court theh considered,the prices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/-per acre for Category 'A' lands and f9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as ag as of 1.4.1997 at no lal< highlighting that the pric that the potentiality had been Government issued on w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions inst the minimum price notified :hs per acre, sale instances were s was ^10,03,364/- per acre. :

¶52The decision in Mc[ to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court v\ commercial indu agricultural land in Delhi had noted that. notwit projecting la potentiality, the same h lender Sinoh'^ case, pertaining ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential, strial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality istanding Master Plan so. nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana and Hclambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be et growth and what the. market 'ecisions in Gairafs caise expected to be the mark actually grows. The c LA.App.No;999/20r0 & connected matters (ft\ Mahender Sinah's, • ca translated itself into a wiien prices rose by tliereafter extende with the requisite mome between 10% per annun could be that pursuant ise highlight that potentiality reality between 1990 . and 1997 about

16.5% per annum :d potentiality did not translate ntum and the acceleration fell to n to 11% per annum. One reason to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, comrnercial industrial probably there was enough availabilityof developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evicence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras irned Reference Court has given upon and for which 1have given . 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 learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 of agricultural lands would be n9,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning biswa of land which was sold for ^ stamp duty would (f5,39,690/- + ?7"0,160/-) were irice ^17,74,109/- per acre as of >0.5.2002. ?5,39,690/- and ?70,160y mean that ^6,09,850/- spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than th e minimum price notified by the Government from'time to time, I hold that Learned-ReferenceCourt has rightly adopted the correct principleand has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably incre^asingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between the dates when minimum prices were notified and, the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters -•iRi I ' Mli:? 'ri' ; t Section 4 of the Land Acquis further enhance the compe disrniss all appeals and cross land owners or the Union of

¶291leave the parties to bea SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm ition Act and finding no scope to i^sation or to reduce the same 1 objections, whether filed by the dia. r their own cost. • « d (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatte;TS

o $-57 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 298/2011 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANR Appellants : Through: None. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents; Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG