Raghbir Singh v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

20.03.2012 CM No. 5077/2012(u/S 151 CPC for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal) Reasons for delay of 636 days in refiling of the accompanying appeal are spelt out in Paragraph Nos. 3 to 5 of the instant application which is accompanied by affidavit of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Upon notice, learned counsel for the respondents' state that for the period of delay, the applicant/appellant is not entitled to the interest. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned. LA.APP. 72/2012 Learned counsel for the appellant states that the fate of this appeal stands determined by a decision of this Court in LA APP No. 1195/2008 LA.APP. 72/2012 , \ Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. -r --S. % titledas RanbirSharma Vs. Union of India & Another;renderedon 6'^ January, 2012. This is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of in terms of decision in Ranbir (supra). It is made clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to the interest for the period of delay. However, the appellant would be entitled to proportionate costs. JNIL GAUR (JUDGE) MARCH 20,2012 hk LA.APP.72/2012 % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT .'NEW DELHI ' Reserved on: November 18, 201J Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 , (GRID-A) i LA.AEP.l195/2008(WLLAGE-Bm.RTHAL) RANBIRSHA.RA4A Appellant: Through; Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mx.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates : Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. ; Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate I Mr .IN.S.Negi and Mr.H. S.Rautela, Advocate I Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, ; Advocates. ]\4r.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate ; Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosia, Mr.Samit Khosla I andMr.DliananjayMehlav/at,AdA;-ocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate',. ; Mr.I.S.Daliij'a, Advocate •' Mr. Sandeep Thaldiur, Advocate Mr.Atul I'ripathi, Advocate. ; Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocates for respondent in appeals filed^by UOI) ; versus LiNION OF INDIA& ANR. i Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay ; Pathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain, ' Ms.K.KaurnudiKiran,Advocatesfor LAC/UOI ; Mr.AjayVerma,Ms.Beenashaw Soni,Mr.Mukesh I Kumar,Mr.S.K.Setlii,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal j Sharma,Advocatefor DDA LA..'\PPi.4i2/2008& CM.No.4096/2008 TCross-'Objections);JAAPP 459/2008-LA.APIi453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& CM.Nj3.5990/2010(Cross-Obiections); LA.APP|.697/200S& .CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.701/2008& CM.No.pO/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; L'N.ApiL No. 1.1U.S/2008|&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 1'x.App. No. Z94/Z010& connectedAppeal.5ofVillageBijwaian IA.App. No. lU/?.030&connecladAppealsofVlllascPochanpur ^ Pi-pl'izq ^ CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008' LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections):LA.APP774/2008& i"^A (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP776/2008* LA.APP777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008& CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-ObeS-LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.^l5/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APPr/99/2008 & CM No 931/2009 LA.APP805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM No 806/2009 ^^iPP•8'»2008; LA.APPi;819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; T ' LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.•832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008-LA.APRJ44/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APR.873/2008 & CM No 779/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Obiections)- LA.APP.,01/2008;LA.APp.9!5/2008;L^APMSri; /a XT?;.]? (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008- ..AAPP.974/2008& CM.No.519./2009 (Cross-Objections);LA APP 975/2008-LA.APR976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP!.986/2008 & CM.No572/2009 (Cross-OJjections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM No 17340/2008' jCross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No,17335/2008(Cross-Obiections)- CM.No.599/2009(Cross^O.bjections);LA APP 1046/2008 LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Obiections)' lAAPP ^ CM.No.420/2009(Cross^Objections);LA.APP1050/2008' LA.APP. 051/2008& CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-Objections)-LAAPP 10^2/'^008-CmZS^^«°-«®009(cLs-6b,e^.io"s);^k™54;2«^^ CMNo 752'20?? - LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.NoJ52/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.'1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (-ross-Otjiections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0biections)- & CM.No.546/2009(C™iobSlo"s> 1074/2008 & CM.No:.623/2009(Cross-Obiections)- LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Obiections)- &"cMNf2W9008^^'^•^°^^J^^2/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.]086/2008 ^ CM>fo.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No619/?000 LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.il094/2008: LA.APP 109y2008-ctlNoS'9 ^0?^^? '^^^^^•"•441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1108/2008& CM LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.J110/2008 & CMNo38?i-009 LA.APP.11M/2008;LA.APP.1112/2008& T ni? (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CM No 3826/2009 LA.APP.il116/2008; LA.APP.l121/2008-LA,APP.l12b/2008; .LA.APP.l129/2008 & CMNo 550'2009 ('Cm'^9 ObiZpi" LA.APP.1I30/2008;LA.APP.U31/2008&CMS 6« 09 0o2^ W LA.APP.l135/2008&CM.No.7442/2M9S-Ob SZv rAAPP'115^/2008t A^ipp (Cross~Ob?ections);LA.APP.l140/2008; ' . V.APR11|56/2008;LA.APP.1157/2008;LA.APR1158/2008& CM No 7774^009 CMN LA.APP.1161/2008;LA:APP.n66.)2(M r A CA/[.No.802/2009-(Cross-Obiections)-LA APi^ n68/900X• LA.APP.l170/2008;LA.APP.1171/2008;LA.APP.l172/^:LA Appl 73 900^ LA.APP.11^5/2008;LA.APP.l178/2008 LA.APP.l1792^- IAAPP 8 900 • LA.APR11;82/2008;LA.APP.1183/2008& CM.No;.693S9(Cro^^^^ !-.A.y\PP.1184/2008;LA.APP.l185/'2008; LA.APP.l186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 ! lA.App No. n05/?,ao8&connectedAppeal.?ofVillageBharlhal iAA,c.p..iMo.,2.94/2010g; corinoctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ./^.App,Mc. 11.1/20.10a connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 2 of 29, % a-oss-Ubjections);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008-1A APP 1199/9nn8 LAAPP.a193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.lI9S; lI'aPP 9S ^^^•No.6935/2009(Cross-OLjections)-LA APP 1200/2008 LA.APP.il202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.l2lSo8-LA APP 9^ ?nn« Sifir ?"=•• ir: Ei HiE "s,= LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA APP 138/2009-LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP144/2009-LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; LA APP 190/2009-LA.APP.i;97/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APp!99/2009 ^^•^PP-203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009& CM No 70?7/900< (Cioss-Obpctions);LA.APP.210/2009& CMNo 970/2011 rrm^Vni r ^ S&ot pS: LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009;LA.APP.491/2009 LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009;' LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009: LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP.5iti3/2009 LA.APP.5f;)9/2009 LA.APP.5i3/2OO9 LA,APP.404/20i0; lIaPPJ^oTiT' - -APP.1177/2008;LA.APP.1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009' (Relatingtp NotificationNo. F.10{30)/96/L&B/i:a/134I7dated 13 12 2000 26-00"™,®/''?^' Act, 1894 &Awld No

26.2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Dellii) LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP.191/2009 LA. APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 LA.APP.3 05/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.5 10/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/20 10 LA.APP. 1176/2008 (GRID-B) Re^rved on: Decp.mher08. 20] 1 Pronouncedon:January 06. 20/2 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN): DliVENDER KUMAR , Appellant 1hrough: Mr.R.S.Tomar;Mr.VirendraSingh UVAPP No, :L.ieV2008 coiVnectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ^0. 294/2010&ccnnectGdAppealsofVillageBijwasan t.-.App.No. J.•.1,/OiO &connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Advocates ; . Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .152/2010 .i56/20]0 100/2010 .1242/2010 .'282/2010 .;287/2010 .^295/2010 .{346/2010 .'350/2010 .1354/2010 .'365/2010 .'360/2010 .1405/2010 .1409/2010 .'723/2010 .727/2010 .750/2010 .1964/2010 .177/2010 '75/2010& LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP, 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objeptions) ! |i: • Respondents Through; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates • fbrUOI/LA:C^ Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Ro|utray,Advocatesin appeals filed.by UOI. ]\4r.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI NIr.BankeyBiliarSharma.,Mr.Kunal Sharma a.nd]\4l:.SomerK.Seth, Advocates fbrDDA. ' ^ LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.API®. 725/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010. 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&;i|l.A/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued ufider Section 4 of the Land AcquisiticinAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-|2003,''VillageBijwasan,Delhi) i ' AND IA.App. No. 1195/2008Si connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. IMh. 29,'a/;'.010& iconnected Appeals of Village Dijwasan . 1A.App. No.'lll/2010 &'connectedAppealsof VillagePochanour % (GmD-C) 6: Reserved on: Dp.rpmher18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2017 LA.AFP,111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUr| SEHAJRAA4 ORS. ; Through; , Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solanldand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 :to,,26,29, 30, 33,36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 ito 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.;61" 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) ' versus UNIONQF INDIA& ANR Through; ' Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBiha'riSharma,Mr.Kunal SharmaandMr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. ' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L4.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 11:1/2010 . 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 • 919/2010

6.5/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/201 r 536/2011 154/2010 165/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 • 489/2010

639./2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/20 n • NO. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal . •M1P.NO.U1/2010&connectedAppealscfVillagePochanpur LAAPP.., 155/2010 LA.APP|,209/2010 LA.APP^249/2010 LA.APP.:-261/2010 LA.APP.,305/2010 LA.APP..392./2010 LA.APP.,397./2010 LA.APP. ,433/2010 •LA.APP.. 577/2010 LA.APP. 640/'2010 LA.APP. 741/2010 LA.APP. 784/2010 LA.APP. 61/2011 LA.APP. 117/2011 LA.APP. 129/2011 LA.APP. 521/2011 LA.APP. 526/2011 LA.APP. 591/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA,APP. LA.APP, LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010

657./2010 758/2010

918./2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 Page S of zn i ti I •: i : (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96--L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & A\\ardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,jVillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR| ^ ORDER I

06.01.2012

¶1Since-the groundson which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsbl for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificatiQnNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417\dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Ifi^harthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpmare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-I ir in Deihi, commenced with tlie issuance,of NotifiQation of U"' December, 2000 under Section4of the Land AcquisiJon Act, 1894, pertaining'tovast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprismgof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. '

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.'2g/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting compensation '^13.82 lacs per acre for •Block 'A' |(level field-with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B' (withouttop soil). ' .;

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarkedvalueoftheiracquired lAApp.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVIliaBeBharthal --..App. No. 294/?,010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 6 of 7.9 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the RefeEenceCourt vide impugned judgment had enliancedcompensation@ i?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhaveibeendismissed.

¶5In, these appeals, further enhancementof compensationsought by the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees Fiftylacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought I compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirtylacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions'in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246; AnjaniMoluDessai vs. State of Goa and Am.,

(2010) 13 see 710;SubhRam and Ors vsl StateofHaryanaandAm.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala CDeadj. through LRs. Fs. Special I I ehsildar(LandAcquisition)<&. Ors., (2010)3 See ,661;RanvirSingh andAm, vs. Union ofIndiaAIR 2005 Se13467; ChindhaFakiraPatil

(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased)through LRs, vk Union ofIndia & Ann, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. St&te of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of. Punjab &. Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) II see ;171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana.&Am, (2008)2SCC 568; W.p|.(C)No. 4143/2003tided as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; _ ' SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer'& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) / SC-C 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, I • I •• lA.Apn No. :ll9.'i/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. ;,9'i/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. Ul/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ! Page7of 29 Gujarat and Am\, AIR 200r SC 2424; 'Haryana State Industrial I I DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCO 175; RisalSingh & Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia & Am., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chand V5. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769;' GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshhhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC,745; Valiiyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 'SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatrdy Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) <& Ors. Vs.: Union of India &. Anr, 176(201,1)DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh ra. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., |decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash,(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997). 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. I i'i' No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled;as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleR.ayn vs. Union ofIndia,2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On. the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged b}' Mr.B.S.Maan,.learnedarguing'counselfor the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over a periodof time andithe same cannot be limited to the near future alone. '

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,(jounsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijvvasan passes throughthe land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on t]:|e easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,Nev/ Delhi u\.•App. No. 1195/2008 coniiectudAppealsofVillageBharthal , -I-lA.App. No. .?91/20i0& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan lAApp, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ; Page8of''g and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters )vide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiy MurtitowardsDwarkaSub-Cit}^ Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGFAirportis located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFami'Housesare located on the land ofA^illagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by A^r.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentofDwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslmsc^to highlightthatthe boundaiy of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous. i • I .

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.l{4a;an,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court h^s 'failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16^'^ October, 2000 vide whjbh land use of the three villages in question was changed from' agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24"' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidItwo Notificationshave been wrongly discardedby the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama IA,Apr. No. .1195/2008&cpnnp.cVedAppealsofVillageBharthal '.A.App.No. 29'!/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan L">.App.No. 1.11/7.010(i connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 9 of .29 Redcli& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer^\I^yderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass V5. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquir^land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area oA^er a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near futijire alone and if after the •acquisition,if the authoritiesdo notput the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthat there is no buildingpotentiality. ,

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharmajlearned counsel for the appellants:uponthe seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflected-thereinvariedfrohi ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and meiely because of the said variation,these|sale exemplars camiot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale!exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per Jsettled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMol^hessaivs. State ofGoa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exem23larsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the! land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsreliefupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates for detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentofmarket value ofthe acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-deteiminedrates fixed by the Government for allotmentof alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view ',thfe location,situationand potentialit}^'ofthe acquired land, determinationof its market value is \j\.•App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App. No. 7.94/2010& connGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ' l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • •; sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis ofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or jon the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto aboW.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds:- I a) •ignores the acknowledgement ok, the part of the respondent about the Award No.$/2002-2003dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination.of appellant dated

7.7.2007) \ . h) Does not accountfor the fact tUat the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland in the areafor more than 15years before the Notification under Section5 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. : c) Valuing the land on the basis \of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laid doMm by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble' Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) l^oes not deal with disparityin valuejofthe Sale Deeds pj^oducedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5,475 of2007. The Llon'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin lAApp.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal • i7\.App,No. ^94/20108, conneclGdAppealsof \/illageBijwasan •-A.App, No. 111/2010a connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' Pagg 11 of 29 case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, '2010(13)SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averagingpf different t)>pes of sales transactions should he-, considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon a. certanland. ./): Relied upon judgment datek 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market,value ofthe subject landwhile igrioringthe materialIwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis muchhigherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockAand^l3,36,000\inBlockB in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v^. State ofHar)>ana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No 1 •• framed on27.2.2007. \ g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras\ and Bharthal was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland ;came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that iri future land can be subjected to residential, comniercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinent-to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"" amendment of the Constitutionof hidia, w.lf 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the> Umd is situated, deemeda municipalarea and the'ynunicipalCounsellor was electedfrom, there. No Panchayatelections were held in the area. h) .Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme 'Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Ahr vs. Union ofIndia •and refusedto considerthefact that,the developm.entin the area has a directeffecton the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjecfland ; • _ .

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectp.clAppealsofVillageBharthal ' \ I.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (I auctionedsimilarlysituatedlandj®. commercialblock at th^ rate ofabout lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe subjectlandis even lowerthan the pre-determinedauction rates set 'by RespondentNo. 2 joi similarly situated land. k) 'Does nottake into accountthepossibilityofchangeof the use ofthe landalthoughthe I'cfnt}.M.as acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarlfti Phase II It is Bharthalwas changedand these areas ceased to be "Toemsttt boundaries \ ' I) IgnoredNotificationsdatedId.io'whoand 24 101994 although they clearly establish ' the commercial (J, (2010)3see 661 It was heldthatthepurposefor ftch land is acquired is a relevantfactor WMe determiningvalue of the properti acquired the fact m) The presence ofa number of buildings on the lands f'?"'.''® wirf land being occupied by the uildmgs are to he treatedas hoiise-sites. The lands ^ere acquiredfor pui^ose of putting up reldennaV hZsTlitt'7°"^- consideredas louse site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof beingputin betteruseas housesitesinifenearfuturj^^

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pa! and 'others of LA. App No 347/2009,tile factualdetailshave been providedwithaprayerthat th^ appellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with the eo-appellantsof the Otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals. ' J

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidarg^imentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it;wasurgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof PP ^0. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ; f'age 13 of 29 urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDaitatrayThirthkarra. State ofMaharashtra.AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra(MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs.\Union ofIndia &'Anr, 176(20l| DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuctionRatel |f the area are relevantto determinethe market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale nistancesreheduponby the appellantsai-e comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt fo assess the correctmarket value of: the acquired lands. Tlius, enh^cemem of compensation reflectmgjust,fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtinItheseappeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby tjie-Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certifiedcopy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be l^cen as relevant'evidence lor determinationof the market value unlLss and until the same is properly connectedwith the land,in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand otiierfkctorsnamely.,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also ^jqUiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtandwhileplacingrelianceupon,the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) JDRT 227, Saipal& Ors vs. Union of India, {mi) 11 see•423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Ann,

(2009) 15 see 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SushilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it wa^ urgedthat sharpincrease price in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntilreasonsfor such sharp jincreaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.App. No. ligb/2008a connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. IMq. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App, No. lU/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir and the purchaseras no prudentperson haying loiowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendinthe marketwouldpay such a higherpay as reflectedin the saleiinstance of Radha Swami Satsang,\Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.jThus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenancec. in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chanel (supra) whidh has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Court in SushilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra). I «

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is|concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel! for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturallland by the Governmentas on 1'^ April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per aniium, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously . determined by the Reference Court, as in?; Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancement,"fromthe priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12?/o per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. : i ' '

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon,closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordmid the-decisionscited,what emergesif;thatthe true marketvalue of the comparableland is the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto aVv^illing LA.App. No, 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' '' lAApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ; lJ\.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page15 of 29 % I.A.App lA.App I.A.App seller mid tlie best evidence is tlie comparablesale instances. Wliile dealing:witli tlie questionofpotentialvalilieofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the iparket value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Vdho tiass vs. State ofRaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords'- ^

(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a.-visthe cit\>or

(ii) the town or village which had because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation; | the suitabilityofthe acquiredl^andforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as the case may be; I

(iii) possibilityofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using • the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence, of highways, public-roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityorcloseproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions_ health care centres,,or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land^ \w}}ich may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the ; acquiredland;and \ \

(vii), landsaroundthe acquiredland.or:the acquiredland \ itself being in demandfor building purposes, to , specify afew. " '

¶181he potentialityoflandfor the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildmgpurposesdependsupon alarge numberof factors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purposefor Mo. I19.'5/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharlhal r-Jo. M4/;mio&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ' •Mo. 1.1.1/2010&conn,ectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur I ' been growing in size which tlie lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash'While reiteratingthe releyantfactors for detemiination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsmall pieces ofland relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be agrouiidto discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepiecesof landwere not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. MIL \^afiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference either in'location, situation or potentiality|,of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and tlie acquired land. ,

¶20It is a well establishedproposition proving the true marketvalue of the acquired'land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpuipose. But, it is equally ti'ue that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tcmdon(Supra)can bejreferredto with advantage.

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential j colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc:, had held ihat deduction I of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent I It' ,observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnlaniMolu Dessai/Supra) deserve attention, which are as under;- ! lA.App No. 3195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBhai'thal IA.App. IMG. :^.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App No. .111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur o| law that the burden of "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highestof the exemplars,which is alboiaafide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can he taken] as representing the marketprice. But where the values ^disclosedin respectof two sales are markedly different, it chn only lead to an inferencethatthey are with referenceto dissimilarlands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or otherprice depressingreasons.'Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. " \ .

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note of the clinchingobsei'vations pertainingto determinationof fair marketrats of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira PaM (Supra), which are as follows "It is well settled that genuine \and 'bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto the • point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands'possessing similar value or utility^ takenplace betweena willingvendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonableprudentpersons acting in the normal market conditions 'are the real basis to determine the market value. " ; '

¶23Principlesto detemiinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and NaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- I / I .) "Primarily, the increase in land pricks depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilit)!of landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land\in: the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of'developmentin the vicinit)/', increase in prices would ''•be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. I.A.A|jp.No. J195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i.7\./*(3p.Mo. 111/2010gi connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu'- m On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development•is faster,. where the demtmdfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in marketprice is at a [much higher rate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepockets in big cities, due to. rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched\even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. Qn the other extrem.e, in remote rural areas where there, was. no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a nominalrate-of 1%) or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase !in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the correspondingincreases in rural [areaswouldat best be onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5%p 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the .general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceof clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the]actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appHM'woulddependupon the same. ^ Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe marketvalue by providingappropriate;,escalationover the provedmarketvalue ofnearby lands ii'jpreviousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparable lands in theneighbourhood. The said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sal,e transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by'onlyaf^wyears,that is uptofour to^five years. Beyond that itmay be unsafe, even ifit related to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe mai'ket•value, of a land acquired in J.992, adopting the annual increase method with ref&^ekce to a sale or i.A.App, No. 3195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I i' V\

¶24acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the ^ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drasticchange apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiods'.ofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffedtingthe verystandard ofincrease." ' \ This Courtis mind&lofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Harymm StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation-of compensation for the aqquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods.What was saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is:as under:- ' •; "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or landswith different sitiiationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of, their value with referenceto previousstatus^orsituation'shouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthesamenotification." I

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village iBijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale'exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,FtadhaSwamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village PochEinpur at a price whichvariedfrom ^52 lacs to ^62 lacsper acre.' • • 26; WhetheraforesaidSaleDeeds(Ex.Pwil/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetween|oneset of co-ownersm4.RadhaSwamiSatsang Beas in respectofthecompactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe con-ectmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the moot;questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds LA.App. No 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp. No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan KA.App. Mo. Jll/?.oio&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur '' n , i (Iix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetliatte price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby,itlie entire land of the sale exemplars-- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to E^.PW-1/10)did not command the samemarketprice.It was dependentupon'the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establishthe advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale e> einplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquned lands in question.The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to; Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brouglitout as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had ihe purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaidsale exemplarsbeen got examin<]d,then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay suchahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the pu&Haser, i.e., Raclha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore thm 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitattt price in VillageMamurpurvideiSijleDeed executedon 25"" March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. Xpp. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon ?3«.20n and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011and in the aforesaiddecisions,thi sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhileholdingthatthe same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. ^

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land, use of the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence thatthe acquiredlandswere beingused for agriculturalpurposetilltheir acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developedlands. No prudent person having^knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. ;..19V2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ./.pp.^0. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. iMo. li1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu market price of the land in questionwould pa)/- such a high price unless I I ' ^ I I and until ,such purchase is meant for special!c6nsideration and so, in the . considered opinion of this Court the sale jexemplars,i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have beenj rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon b}^ the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'^ January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11)was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed i (Iix.PW-1/11)vendorhad soldnot onlythe laniibut the structurethereon includingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,larie, by-lane,etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question. ! '

¶29/Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is req-^iiredto be consideredas to whetheradoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixationof marketvalue of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtinits decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderab.ad'Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCt 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvalue ofthe-acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialityy\nth referenceto the pricefetchedby saleofplots in awelldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood ' . , lA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 1 f LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan , . l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page22of29 # or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialviywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout ofbuildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out \vhat will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesqf^lotsin the layouts, re ledupon by any oftheparties,witJir^renceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section () ofthe Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetched y the sales oftheplots in layoutsofHuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then M^hat couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to 'fhe relevantdate of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingt^o the actualuse to which it wasput and,increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the bfisisofevidenceto be made available in that regard A.small percentage increase to be given shall not e.ceedl/5th ofthe mar'L value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method ofgivingfncreasedvalue for such buMing potentialityarises only ^hen there is\o evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in thi neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate aC^edTand"' 'ffo'-'nedin the In view ofthe difEcuItiesin adoptionLfirateofland chargedby the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,ivelopingthe same,and trmtsferringperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex Court iu Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining thi market value of tlie adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following^the dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Smhil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueof A.APP. No. 1195/2008&connectcdAppealsofVillageBharthal IA a'"'"' ^ connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •A.App, No. lU/2010&connected/"ppealsofVillagePochanpur Q the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has lightlynot adoptedthe DDA ratesfor allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DetenninedRates foi' alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question. ! II I

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor asseSsi'ngthe marketvalue ofthe land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland.othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argi^pd by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/projss-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10%jper annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000,. i.e., for]t^e period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPliase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the LandAcquisitionCollectoris more thanthe aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted'Iby the Reference Court is unjustified. I !' I •

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt piogressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a leliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew;years,may becomeunsafe ' I • and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the, instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofibwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteen'yearsand therefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value Hy providing appropriate I LA.App. No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal " LA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan ' lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ~ ^4 of29 Q escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe neairbylandofthe previousyears

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation 12% per annum, which is unwan'anted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil escalation @ 10% per annum. After ha^ Kumar (Supra), has granted drjg perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I fmd that 10%) inci;easeon account of higher potentiality of the acquired land, over e; determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been;grantedand so, by relying ^ upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @12%) per annumcannotbe reducedto 10%> per annum.In this viewof , the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respo'ndentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's mmimumprice ofthe agriculturalland inDelhi, by the ReferenceCourt IS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%^per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f |l®'''April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instantappeals deservissto be further increasedor not. i I V,

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimuin;rates of agriculturalland ] . . I ; pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learnedcounsel for;appehantsbecausetheiacquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notifipaiionof 24^'^ October, 1994 declaring-agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban.Itis tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthatby itselfis not sufficientto LA.App. Mp. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ! i.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i * I nd above the market vakie m (fS\. presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidejiceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere beingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands mquestion. Not only this, even the sale' exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang;Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosetliatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4kthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasemprice due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their usb post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laidtheirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)witi^cjutaeadingany evidence to establishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparalplewiththe acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired lahd with the sale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot|be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum, of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndmtrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC){Su^va),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum;price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which -generally factors in the rise .'of price due to higher potentiality.1aking note of the fact that there is a gap between what lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur n would be expectedto be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown,Government'sminimumAgriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe|market value of the, acquired landsmJaiSingh(Supra)as well as inSmhilKumar(Supra)andIfind no reasonto take adifferentview than th^ oiie.whichhad been taken by coordmate Bench•of this Court in the Aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)andSmhilKumar(Supra).

¶38Ihis Court is of the consideredvie-^ that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal.-and Village Bijwasan has lightly relied upon the Govermnent'smipimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue oftheAcquiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtmmatterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidence,on record.ButIfind thatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthL IGI Aii-poit,IndianOil and BharatPetroleumDepots and of Railwayline passingthrough Village Bharthal and there,beinga 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,tadI,and Part11, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there! being Farm Houses in the vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aforesaid:locationaladvantages,the acquiredInds in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin; vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis^ourtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarket value of,the acquired lands as assessed by/the Reference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentiality|n the acquiredlands is the IV\.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I LA.App. No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur n settled legal position aptly highlightedby the' Apext Court in Mirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SC€ 238, inthesewords:- I "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland beii^g.usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increase-inpriceattributable to\suchbuildingpotentiality." ' j ,

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would Ide veiy difficultto provide a definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is bioadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whi6hpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying tha Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no special featuresto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants^of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relyingjupon the decisionin Sushil I Kumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10%|increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determined?bythe ReferenceCourtin ^ these matters on .account of the aforebaid tecational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin th'e acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awardijig,10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Vill-ageBharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof l! LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal i LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofViliageBijwasan i LA.App.lMo..111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page28of29 n the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to tlie extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands ofthese threevillagesin questionis determined@|?1;6,50,000/- Category ^A' land and @^14,69,600/-per l^i.afor the Category'B' lands in question. , |

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. U'OI 2001 (93) DLT'569 are granted,exceptfor:the periodwherethereisVdelay in filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the eiihancedcompensationshall be paid.Iheseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedbyieitherside withthe Registrar Generalofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb n tlie compensation awarded, /s)p' i ;« l-A,App. No. 1195/2008& connGctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal lA.App. IMq. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2.010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur o . % IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELHI AT;NEW BELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 ! I • Appellant Through. Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.'AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.Rj.S':Verma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, AdvocMe. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate, i j Mr.RaghuvinderGodaka,Advocate Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar,iAdvocatefor Mr.R.S.Tomar. i ; Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.silC'.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus I ii UNIONOF INDIA&ANR ; p i , T.1 T.. ^ ' •• Respondents Ihiough: iMr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocatesfor LAC/UC^I^ .^•Ajay Verma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingli ^.BanlceyBihariShama,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: it HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESUNILGiADR ! ORDER ^ .

12.01.2012 • C.M. AddI. Nn. 752/2012 This IS an applicationfor seeldngtjJpographicalcorrectionin Orderof6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellants!have acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 •'' :' -• .if vC> f%. r. • I ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. ! ' , I . i The typographicaleiTor pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'^^ January,.2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the ,aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', wheieas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe reference!to-'perbigha'in paragraph no; 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as ^per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. i [ In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12,2012 pkb V-:* UNIL GAUR) JUDGE LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2 L

$-13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 72/2012 RAGHBIR SINGH Appellant Through: Mr. S.K.Rout and Mr.R.C.Khatri, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate forR-lUOI/LAC Mr. Parmahans, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: ^ HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR