Azad Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.0L2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008,titled as 'Ranhir Sharma V5. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06,2012 pkb (STTNILGAUR) JUDGE H * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % • Reserved on: November 1.8, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) i-LA.APP.1195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) # RANBIR SHARA4A Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Maan,MrAmit Maan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates MrAnand Yadav and Ms Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.MAzam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOT) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw. Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K,Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA LA.APP.412/2008 & CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.452/2008; LA.APP.453/2008; LA.APP.688/2008 & CM.No.5990/2010 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.697/2008 & CM.No.433/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.701/2008 & CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; lA.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bjjwaian lA.App. No.111/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur ? LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008;LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008& CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008-LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM No 779/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Obiections)- LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008-LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP975/2008" LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008;,,LA.APP.986/2008 & CM No 572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM No 17340/2008 LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) /v ^ CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP1046/2008 LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections^ T ^ CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008 .APP.1051/2008& CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-Objections)"LAAPP 1052/2008 CMNo75Mnn ^Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.NOJ52/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No 1557/2011 nu ? ^ r ^^^oss-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM No 619/2009 CM No3828/^ LA.APP,U09/2008;LA.APP.l110/2008& C^831/Sf^^oteS^™:n'=^rcT.^:Sot LA.APP.1137/2008& CM No 17283/200S LA.APP.1156/2008-1AAPP H57/2nns rf LA.APP.l140/2008 ii;£™pi: LA-APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.1183/2008& CMNoiwS rcmsfOb'^ ^ LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.n85/2008;LA.APP.nge/JOOsVS™^ IA.App.No. in/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.l192/2008 LA.APP.l193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.l195/2008; LA.APP.l197/2008 LA.APP.1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP.1223/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross.Objections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.1279/2008 LA.APP.1281/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA APP 39/2009 t ^ CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA APP 59/2009 CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 Vrmcc.nv +• ^ LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; ' • LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP.144/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; LA.APP.190/2009; . LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APP.199/9009' LA.APP.203/2009;LA.APP.208/2009& CM No 7027/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009& CM No 970/2011 rCmc. ok ! n PBIlii T LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP509/2009-la.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA APP 513/2009' LA-APP.572/2009; LA.APP.15/2010 LAAPP4520?0^ LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; LAAPPlHsS LA.APP.l177/2008;LA.APP.1201/2008;LA.APP2iS LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.197/2009; 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. 506/2009 LA.APP.5 10/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA713417dated 13 njmn (GRID-B) Reservedon: DecemberOR^ 7011 Prormmed on: January06. 2oT?. < LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEVENDERKUMAR , " -p, , , Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh W.APP. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.APP. NO. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePorhanpur /- * / 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. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010. 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & .....Respondents Through; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. 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. 11/2010 53/2010 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 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. LA.APP. LA.APP. 49/2010 54/2010 59/2010 223/2010 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 725/2010 731/2010 764/2010 364/2010 99/2010 C.M.No.964/2011(Cross-objections) 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 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,'VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND lA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App.No, 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App. Mo. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur % 4- (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharrna, Mr.S.K.Solanlci and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29,30,33, 36to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth.Advocates for DDA. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/201r 536/2011 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. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/20J 489/2010^ 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPE (IXapp. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/^2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I^APP. ^-.A.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 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. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarJ^Phase-11' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13'^ December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof 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.28/2002-2003;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 assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ITV.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Paggg agriculturallands, appellantshad soughtreferenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourtvide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' and ^13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave beendismissed.

¶5In these appeals,furtherenhancementof compensationsoughtby the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees Fiftylacsper acre,whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr.,

(2010) 13 sec 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Am.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha FakiraPatil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State 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) 11 SCC 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana tS Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land'Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, lA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharthal LA.App. No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page7 of29 Gujarat and Am., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15, RisalSingh& Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DRj 527 (DB);Za/Chandvs.Union of India and Am., {2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and f Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Am., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India,

(1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled 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 Bhule Ram vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mi-.B.S.Maan,learnedarguingcounsel for the appellants that the locationand situationof the acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understdod in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over a periodof time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tom.ar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes throughthe land ofVillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpyr Pagggof29 t and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas 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 developmentof DwarkaPhase-Iand the lands onthe westernside of VillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslmdcpto highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has 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 which 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 appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA,App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pg g^^29 Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana &. Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Shanna, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from ^"52 lacs to ^62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Am., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to ^57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueof the acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learned counsel for the appellantson the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pgge jqqj 29 0|f sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant-Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

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

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more ^^cent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ^ SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore 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.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppeaisofVillageBharthal W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA-App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana ( Molu Dessai v^. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averagingof different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the marketvalueofthe land is much higherthan 15 lacper acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No.l framed on 27.2.2007. 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 in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other perinissibleuses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74'^amendment of the ConstitutionofIndia, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor 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 Anr vs. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a directeffecton the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about X2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthe possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land althoughthe landwas acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase IL It is reiteratedthat the land use of VillageDhoolSiras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. ® IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthe saidland. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010)3see 661 it was heldthatthepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determiningvalue of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in nearfuture needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the • buildingsare to be treatedas house sites. The lands ^ were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential A quarters.As aportionofthe landis beingconsideredas house site, the adjoininglands have the potentialof beingputin betteruse as housesitesin the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual detailshave been providedwith aprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof LA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal uA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan W.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur j* urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change.in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Daitatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-Detemiined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation (|^ reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is ^ soughtin theseappeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certifiedcopy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence for determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the RespondentsdisclosingcoiTect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtandwhileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRT 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SushUKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthatsharpincrease mprice in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increase are explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^3 and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay sucha higherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon" by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1^' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per amium, 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 that there is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the price of acquired •lands as fixed by.the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@ 12% 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.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides,and upon closeperusalof the impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the-decisionscited,what emergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto a willing LA,App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or villagewhich had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as the casemay be;

(Hi) 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 vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland; ® or advantages of educational institutions, fA centres, or the like in the surrounding •W areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

(vii) landsaroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demandfor building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶18Thepotentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas alsofor buildingpurposesdependsupon alargenumberoffactors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purposefor W.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 'l which the 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 (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court inAtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be a groundto discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in LandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC I

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

¶20It is a well establishedproposition of law that "the burden of provingthe true marketvalue of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto withadvantage.

21.. Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePoclianpur Pagel7of29 # p "The legalposition is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highestof the exemplars,M'hich is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar landswhoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the marketprice. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (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 absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determinethe market value of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for developmentin the area, and the demandfor land, in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinit)f, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutanysuddenspurts orjumps. LA.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal W.App. No. 2.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 18 of29 7^' On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the developmentisfaster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreper year, duringthe nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate 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-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%)per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved marketvalue of nearby lands inpreviousyears (as evidencedby sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market'valueof a land acquired in. 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or LA.App. No. 1195/2008& conn(5ctedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur # # acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^ate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnationin prices or suddenspurts inprices affectingthe verystandard ofincrease."

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods.What was said by the Apex CourtinHSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or landswith different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthesamenotification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitaiysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price whichvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ^62 lacsper acre. • 26. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are .basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe coiTectmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds W.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l7\,App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (Ex.PW-I/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetl,at its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)did not command the samemarketprice.It was dependentuponthe natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establishthe advantagesattached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesaleexemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question He special need of the purchaserof these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been rought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aoresaid sale exemplarsbeen go. examined,then it could have been eicted from him as to why he had agreedto pay suchahigh pricefor .ese lan^. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha S.ami «sang, eas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an «or itant price in VillageMamurpurvideSaleDeed executedon as'" arch,2000 was alsosubjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas •a, mgh vs. Umon ofIndia, decidedon 23.8.2011 and in LA. App.

19.9.2011 and mthe aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhileholdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters,though the land use ofthe acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,butit has comein evidence .atthe acquiredlandswere beingusedforagriculturalpuiposetilltheir acquisition Thus, it becomesevidentthat the acquiredlands were not ^ market price of the land in questionwould pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale. exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by 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 (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be # adopted to determinethe true market value of the acquiredlands in . question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalueof the acquired land with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in awelldevelopedlayoutin tke neighborhood \ LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal \ LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan * lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur , Page 22 of29 orwhetheritbe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what^ couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasputand increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard Asmall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th ofthe market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving increasedvaluefor such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such,for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " H in adoptionofrate of land chargedby - . the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same,and r Perpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex Court in iflZ CW (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La/ (Supra),acoordinateBench ofthis Court in JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueof lAApp.No. 119V2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternate allotments for fixing the marketvalue of the acquiredagriculturallands in question.

32., Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedsenior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the LandAcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of ^ the Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra),cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method 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 reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^4 of29 3-^ escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court hats, granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Smhil Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the Reference Court @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum.In this view of thematter,the cross-objectionsof therespondentaredismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, 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 fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. 1'^ April,2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notifi-cationin question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceasedto be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^'' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban.Itis tnre thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthat by itselfisnot sufficientto LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan U\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pagg25 of 29 ^jL presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being ^ consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere beingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laidtheirhands on othersale instancesinthe area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat-thequalityandpotentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewiththe acquiredlands contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (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 IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),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.Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what W.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown,Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh(Supra)as well as inSushilKumar(Supra)andI find no reasonto take a differentviewthan the one whichhad beentaken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhito fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation ofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passingthi'oughVillage Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe A acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the V vicinityofthe acquiredlands has somehowmissedthe attentionofthe ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseoverand abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being usedfor putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase inprice attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilities of the instant cases,which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decisionin Sushil Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover,and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthaland Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof LA.App. No. n95/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur "r3gG Zo Or 29 ' ^ ,the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined @ ^16,50,000/- per higtmfor the Category 'A' land and @ ^"14,69,600/-per for the Category 'B' lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is a delayin filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terais with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concernedReference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. C C ' (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE January 06, 2012 % pkb PoT- • LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page29 of 29 T? ^ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. ^ Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefor Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus ™™0F™&ANR. Respondents Through. Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR order

12.01.2012 C.M.Appi.No. 752/2012(Forcorreciinn) This is.^an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof6^'' January,2012. Counselappearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice Page 1 L /y ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalen^or 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', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no; 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary con-ections be canied out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof m % JANUARY 12,2012 pkb —^W^LGAUR) JUDGE Page 2

% % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 489/2010 AZAD SINGH & ORS Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shanna and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR