Smt Raj Uppal v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

29.03.2012 CM No. 5420/2012 (u/S 151 CPC) Delay of 614 days' in re-filing the accompanyingappeal is sought to be condoned by this application,which is supportedby affidavit of learned counsel for the appellant. Upon Notice, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates for respondentsNo. 1 & 2 respectively,state that only oppositionto this applicationis that for the period of delay, the appellantought not be grantedintereston the compensationamount in the event of her succeeding in the appeal. Since the reasons disclosed in Paragraph No. 3 of the application does not display gross negligence, therefore, this applicationis allowed and the delay of 614 days' in re-filingthe accompanyingappeal is condonedwhile making it clear that for the delayedperiod,the appellantshallnot be grantedinterestin the event of succeeding in the appeal. LA.APPNo. 79/2012 Page1 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. With aforesaid observations,this applicationstands disposed of LA.APP. 79/2012 The instantappeal relatesto Village-Pochanpur,where vide Notification of 13^^ December,2000, the land of the appellant stood acquiredunder Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt vide impugnedorder of 24^*^ February,2010 while upholding the compensation amount awarded by the Land AcquisitionCollectorto the appellant,has denied any enhancement thereupon. Mr. SanjayKumarPathak,learnedcounselfor the respondent-UOI, statesthat the subjectmatterofthis appealstandscoveredby the decision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008 'Ranbir Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr.' rendered on 6^ January, 2012, wherein compensation amount in respect of lands acquired in Village Pochampur has been enhanced to ?16,50,000/- per acre for the Category 'A' land and to ^14,69,600/- per acre in respect of Category 'B' lands. Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that case of the appellantis at par withRanbirSharma (Supra). In the light of above,this appealis allowedin terms of decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra) with statutory benefits and proportionate costs, while declining the interest for the delayed period. This appealstandsdisposedof in aforesaidterms. MARCH 29, 2012/rs JIL GAUR) JUDGE IA.APPNo. 79/2012 Page2 % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT^NEW DELHI \ (GRID-A) I LA.Al^P.1195/2008O^LLAGE-BHA.RTHAL) :Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: Januarv 06, 2012 RANBflR.SHARA4A , | Appellant jlhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.Amit]Maan,Mr.Jai Prakash,Ms.Smita ; Maan,Mr.R.S.Verma, Tewathia, Advocates Mr.AnandYadavand Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocates. I Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. : ; Mr.Raghiivinder Godara, ^v.dvocate I Mr.M.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.I^autela,Advocate , I Mr.S.K.RoutandMr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, j Advocates. XI ]\4r.PankajVivek,Advocate j Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla,.Mr.Samit Khosla I and Mr.DhananjayMehlawat,Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocatej: ; Mr.LS.Dahiya,Advocate : Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. ; Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor I respondent in appeals filed-by UOl) versus LTMION OF INDIA & ANR. . Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathak,Mr.Mohitradjadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain, I Ms.K.K.aurnudiKiran,Advocatesfor LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.Mukesh I Kumar,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, ^4r.Kunal ! Sharraa, Advocate for DDA i ^ . LA.APB.412/2008& CM.No.4096/2008 rCrdss^^Obiections);i.A APP 452/2008• !l'•^oS•i^^?°°^ ^ CM'.N:d.5990/2010(Cross-Objections); LA.APP|.6J7/200>j& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; iAAijp.No. l.ms/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharlfial ! I'\.App.Mo. ?.9.|./2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •; lA.App..No. i:i,i/?.ono&connoclad AppealsofVillagePochanpur i • LA.APPi.771/2008& CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections)-LA.APP772/9008 CMNo^(in/S^&CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& IA (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Obiections)' CM^fo '-A-APP-785/2008;LA.APP.798/2008& CM.No^15/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP799/2008 & CM.No931/2009 MyS' LA.APP^05/2008;LA.APP.8p2008;LA.APP,813/2008& CM.No^795./2009 (Cros,s-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No806/2009 O-oss-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008-LA APP 820/20^ LA.APP.:829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP:832/2008' LA APP 8?? 90n«: •rCrot^ObW^^^^; LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APP.873/2008& CM.No.779/9011 • Cioss-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 rCross-OhippHnn.V CMNo7oS9^' LA.APP.901/2008;LA.APp.-9i:5/2008;LA.APP.951/2008& ISp^74S i ^^•^PP-F9/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; r AAr>T. ' Cl\'I.]\o.51.)./2009(Cross-Objections)'LA APP 975/9008• LA.APR976/2008;LA.APP.978/2008; LAAPP;.986/20081 CMNo572S crNo'lSv? CMNo7^^^?? rcrnfnvT"'?' ^^•^^^•1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & rrw • (^^oss-Objections); LA.APP:1058/2008& CM No 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.l72S9/9008rrrn.;ni . & CM nJ) 944S/90ns (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.]086/2008 ' (Trn.. ni •'"J- ^ T<^^^°ss-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM No 6]9/^00O s iiE-rr : rvn^c hkI ^ (Cross-Objectio.ns);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CM.No.3826/?00Q Kiiissiisiipsiiis LA.APP.11^,-2008:LA.APP."85/2008;LA.Awf,?« I iA..App connectedAppeal.sofVil^^^^ i-A.App.No. ;).y4/20i0&corinGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •V>.App, Mc. ,11.1/20.10&connucredAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur Page 2 of 29 , % CMNoSMlflOM^rZfnl LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& sSii=:SlsP= Siii IS= 'Slis\FE= §iil Siiii BiS ss pS-;: S:Sii'S:t;sb.i ii,sss5rfsri ,s-rrr ,p|=: =~: Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA APP 2'45/900g- •LA.APP.2jt9/2009;- LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP29sS Eli illliii sisi LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.5fo/2OO9; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.513/2009" LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP.%/2010' LA.APP.13/2011; LA.APP.1138/2008; LA..APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.A.PP.572/2009; LA.APP.4Q4/2010; LA.APP.I177/2008;LA.APP.'1201/2008;LA.APP.23^]J2009 Relatingtp NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13 122000 I (GRID-B) Reeved on: Decemhpr08. 20n \ Promuncedon: January 06. 20/2 .A.APP.294/'2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) • LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 la. APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.5 10/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/20 10 LA.APP. 1176/2008 DliVENDERKUMAR. ; I-Appellant T,, , . , /"vppeiiant 1hrough: Mr.R.S.Tomar,N.&-.VirendraSingh I^^.App No. .ULW2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal '^...vpp. ..g.j/2010a connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan -App.No. j:.i,20iQa connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur versus Advocates i ; Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Ro'utray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) & IIOI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and|Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC!j' Mr.S.K,Solanld and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Ro^utray,Advocatesin appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appealfiledby UOI Mr.BankeyBiliar 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, 152/2010 ,56/2010 :100/2010 1242/2010 1282/2010 i287/2010 :295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 1354/2010 1365/2010 '360/2010 1405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 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 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.APlf. 725/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 C.M.No.964/2011 (Cross-obje|;;tions) 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 22672010 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& H:/'LA/l3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,•• Village Bijwasan,Delhi) . ' i ' AND •' IA.App, No. 1195/2008S; connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal i.A.App. No. 29,1/?.010& iconnected Appeals of VillageOijwasan . i.A.Api.1.No.'131/2010&jconnectcdAppealsofVillagePochsnour % (GMD-C) Reserved on: Dp.cp.mher18. 2011 Pmmuncedon: January06, 2017 LA.APP.,111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHAWUR)?: SEHAJRam and ors. ; . Through: ' Appellants Mr.B.D.Shamia,Mi-.S.K.Solaiildand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 jto 26, 29,30, 33, 36 to 40 44 to 49, 59, 63ito 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.:6r,64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R~22) I ' versus union QF INDIA& ANR Through; Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for QOI/LAC ii! Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. i llil/2010 1^0/2010 22,8/2010 2514/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 • 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/201] 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. 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 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 IAA n'M conncacledAppealsofVillageBiiwasan • IP. No. ii./2010&connectficlAppealscfVillagePochanpur La!aPP|;155/2010 LA.APPi'209/2010 LA.APP.i'249/2010 LA.APP.;!261/2010 LA.APP.'305/20i0 LA.APP.,392/2010 LA.APP. :397/2010 LA.APP.:^33/2010 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 657/20! 0 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 Page S of 2.b % \ (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,|VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BI^EMR. JUSTICESUNILGAURi ORDER

06.01.2012 ; i

¶1Since the groundson which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearii^g of these appeals, these bunch |)f appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417oLed 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Dharthal, Bywasan and Pochanpu:iare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Accjuisitionprocessfor planneddevelopWntof 'DwarkaPhase-n mDelhi, commenced with the iBsuoncQ^of Notificationof December, 2000 under Section4of the Land Acquisi-.ionAct, 1894, pertammg'to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e.,Bhartlial,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. ' •

¶3Agriculturalland of the'appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstoodacquiredby the RespondentsVide three separateAwards, i.e., Awara No.26/2002-2003: Award No;2^/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@'?l3.82 lacs per acre for '• Block 'A' Klevel field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block.'B'(withouttop soil). | -4. Dissatisfiedwiththe assessmentofmarkd valueoftheiracquired Appealsof VillageBharthal AApp. Wo. ,M/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' '' : , • i ; . agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of I the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the Refei;enceCourt vide impugned judgmenthad enlianced compensation@ ^15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' an^ @ ^^13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal-; and Bijwasan; whereas, ; Si referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhavei'beendismissed.

¶5In; these appeals,furtherenhancementof compensationsoughtby the appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate ofRupees lacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate ofRupeesThirtylacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions! in Executive Engineer, KarnatakaHousingBoard vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246;AnjaniMoluDessaivs. StateofGoa andAmr.,

(2010) 13 see 710; SubhRam andOrs vs'. StateofHaryanaandAm.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead), through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsilday(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3See 661; RanvirSingh I ' and Am, V5. Union ofLndia AIR 2005 Se:3l67; Chindha Fakira Patil

(I)) through LRs ra. The SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand(sincedeceased)throughLRs, Union ofIndia & Ann, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. Stkte of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) iSCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. State ofMaharashtra,(2009) 11 see 1171; Atma Singh (Dead) through 'LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana&Anr, (2008)2SCC 568; W.p|.(e)No. 4143/2003tided as •. Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand'AcquisitionOfficerA Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7SC.C 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, IA.Ape No. :119.V2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. ;.'3'i/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan \ lA.AiJp. No. U1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' p ^7 •> Gujarat^ and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424;; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCO 175; RisalSingh & Ors, Vs. I ' ' Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chand w. Union of India and Anr., p009) 15" SCC 769;; GeneralManager, Oil and I I Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and I • Anr, (2008) 14 SCC;745; ValUyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 |SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh I I Dattatrdy Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs., Union of India & Anr, 176(201il)DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthorit)'& Anr,, Jdecided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakask(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionpfIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. t; No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar 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 BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia. 2010

(170)DLT 371. ! .

¶6On the strengthofthe.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be tirst understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over a periodof time and:the same cannotbe limitedto the near future alone.

¶7It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,oounsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes throughthe land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts. I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is t^e IGI Airport,New Delhi [ ' • • u\./',pp.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal • lA.App. No. 2M/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan iA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur r3gG o Or 29 ^ . I and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters )vide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiy Murti towardsDwarkaSub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides tlie agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFanii Houses are located on the land ofVillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanlcilearnedcounsel 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 estabhshmgIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developme,ntof DwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the ahsizraslxn.di^to highlightthatthe boundary ot 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 ^Ihjbh 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 viewoftheNotificationof24^' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discardedby the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.App, No. 1195/2008&(.onnectGdAppealsofVillageBharthal | l-A.App.[\Jo. -BqiQXQa connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •.•>./\pp. fvlo. lll/MlOi4 connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' • Page 9 of .29 % Redcli& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,\Byderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired'landmust be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over a periodoftime and the same .cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the Idnd to any use, it would not I ! meanthatthereisno buildingpotentiality. I .

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the I appellants;Upon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom p2 lacs to ^62 lacs and meiely because of the said variation,thesejsale exemplars cannot 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 i^^ettledlegal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu-Dessai V5. Stateof Goa andAm., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageof'saleexemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice ofthe; land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore,.reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates tixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined:rates fixed by the Government for, allotmentof alternate >. 1' plots mthe;year2000-2001.Keepingin viewthe location,situationand potentiality;of the acquired land, determinationof its market value is 1-A.App.No. H95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App. Mo. ?,94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or|on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above. i

¶12In ithe writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the Idllowing grounds:- ! .1 a) ' 'ignores the acknowledgement\oii the part of the respondent about the Award Nq.26/2002-2003dated '23.10.2002 being flawed in \the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition]No.l9012 of 2006. ^f^WOl) c^oss-examinatioriof appellantdated b) Boes 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 Section5 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. \ c) Ialuing the land on the basis |of the letter dated J1.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble^ S^reme Count in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(i)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition, e) Does^ not deal with disparityin valu&ofthe Sale Deeds p^roducedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas ver 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 w'tnr f^ connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' W.Acp, No. ^94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan '•/••App. i^Jo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pdga 11 of 29 case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Gda, '2010(13)SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held 'th^ the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging''ofdifferent t].>pes of sales transactions should he-- considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupona certanland. f), Relied upon judginent dated 3.3.2008 in LAC : No.97A/2006to decide the marketvalue ofthe subject landwhile igiwringthe materiaUwhichindicatethat the marketvalueofthe land is m.uchhigherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockAandXI3,36,000%BlockB in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ' including in Subh Ram vs. State ofHary>ana 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 ceased\to. 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, comrrhrcial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinent-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 Iqnd is situated, was •deemeda municipalarea and the\municipalCounsellor was electedfrom there. No Panchayatelections were held in the area. \ '' h) \Refused to apply the laM> laid down in AIR Supreme [Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia .andrefusedto considerthefact that the developm.entin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willin<? purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjecfland

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' •' lA.App.Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan , l.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur # w auctionedsimilarlysituatedland'v,s commercialbloch at the rate ofabout X2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidLandis whollyunderdevelopedland. J) The valuationofthe subjectlandis even lowerthan the pre-determinedauction rates set \>y RespondentNo 2 jor Similarly situated land. k) Does not ta^ into accountthepdssibilityofchangeof the use ofthe landalthoughthe land^as acquiredfor developmmt purposes of Dwarlfa Phase II It is 7hZTnf DhoolSiras and ' u these\areas ceased to be ofmrnsttT boundaries I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and24 101994 although they clearly establish ' the commercial ^""Sunthala v. Tahsildar thth ? i P"'-P0sefor ^hich land IS acquired is a relevantfactor While l!hJ'"7, 'he fact TiZmn! ' buildingpotentialityto be used J buildingpurposes in immediate br in near future needs to be considered I ^ m) The presence ofa number of buiidings on the land. occupied by t buildings are to be treatedas hoUse^sites. Vie lands Zusfntt Z r-consideredas nouse site, adjoininglands have•the potentialof beingputin betteruseas house,itesinfe nearfmre^

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and iotliers of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual detailshave been providedwithaprayerthat th» appellantsof this appeal be treatedat par withSe co-appellantsof the othei appealsin thesebunchofappeals. Snpplenrenthrgthe aforesaidargumentsadv^eedon behalfofthe wellants,rt;wastu-gedby Mr.AnandYadav,Adv.ocatethatthe effectof '•A.A^p No 294/^ AppealsofVillageBharthal pp. ^o. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur urbanizationoftlie lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the changein land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238;KapifMehra(MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia &'Anr, 176(20:if')DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area are relevantto deteimme the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale uistancesreheduponby the appellantsarecWparableand oughtto have been rehed upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enh™cem.ent of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin tiieseappeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby theRespondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas perSection51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, acertifiedcopy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut tlie same cannotbe! taken as relevam'evidence lor determinationof the market value unlUs and until tlie same is properly comrectedwitli the land-in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand otherfactorsnamely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have beein illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRl 227, S<tipal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndiu and Anr.,

(2009) 15 see 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SushilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthatshaipincrease ui pnce in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntilreasonsfor -lUch shaip ;mcreaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller La'a""' ^ VillageBharthal ' LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan ' LAApp. No. 1.1.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir , ' ' •' and the purchaseras no prudentperson hayikg loiowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendinthe marketwouldpay sudh a higherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsarig,'Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.iThus, 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 coordinateBenchofthis Court in SushilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land isiconcerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factipredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1^^ April, 2000 and by granting apprebiationthereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously deteimined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil liuincir (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been grahted.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% per annum and the same deservesto be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and tljereby'allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and,uponcloseperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon lecoidand the decisionscited,whatemergesisf'thatthe truemarketvalue of the comparablelandis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto av/ilhng LA.App. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ; LA.Aop. No, 294/2010&colnnectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ' U.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • :• • Pa e15 f24 seller aiid the best evidence is tlie comparablesale instances. Wliile dealingwith the questionofpotentialvalye ofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the ijiarket value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Vdho vs. State ofBaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 inthesewords:- ' ' I

(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city;or the town or villagewhich had. been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational religiousor any otherlandofimportanceor because ofIts explosivepopulation; I ?

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case mav be-

(ni) possibilit);ofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beputup on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor usin<? the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose; • existence, of highways, public-broads, layouts of bui.dingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin thevicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educationalinstitutions health care centres, or the like in the surrounding-areas of the acquired land 'which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and \ •• I (via landsaroundthe acquiredlandon the acquiredland itsef eing in demandfor building purposes, to . specify a few." , : ,

¶18The.potentialityoflandforthe purposeofdevelopmentas alsofor buildingpurposesdependsuponalargenumberoffactors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to beL in mind the purposefor lAApp. No. U9,y2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharlh^ : .«PP. No. ;.rM/2010&connGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

1.A..VPP MO-1-W2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' ' Page; 16 of 29 i lA.App IA.App LA.App 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 Avimsh'{su\im).AVliilereiteratingthe relevantfactors for detemiination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsmallpiecesof land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be agrouridto discardthem especially wheii exemplarsof largepiecesoflandwere not available.

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

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom,the decisionsreliedupon on behalfof 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 availableto them even as regards foture prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebet^ev^nsimilarlysituatedlands I and the acquiredland. j

¶20It is a well establishedproposition|of' law thait the burden of pioving the true market value of the acquiredland is on the State who I has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpuipose. 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 with advantage.

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,^toj, had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent .observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolii Desscii(Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- • I » NO.U95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBtiarthal No. •;.94/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan rJo. .1.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur > ; Pael7ofZ9 "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars,which is a \bonafide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken', as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of twp sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or otherprice depressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cdnHot be resorted to. " I

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note of the clinchingobser\^ations pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made I '• by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows;- I "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^ taken place between^a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonableprudent persons acting in the normal market conditions hre the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principlesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and NMural Gas CorporationLtd. (Supra), are as under:- , ? ' ?•: "Primarily, the increase in land pricks depends on four factors - situ0ion of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilit)^of landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor landiiri the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would \be slow, steady and gradual,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. I i,A.A|jp.Wo. ]195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthai I.A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ' l.7\./ipp.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu^ t qp On the other hand, in urban or semi-ur han areas, where the development isfaster, 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 somepqckets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched'':even30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. Qn the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there, wcis. 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 df lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase \in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10%..to 15% per annum, the correspondingincreasesin rural'^areaswouldatbest be only aroundhalfofit, that is about5%rto 7.5%jper annum. This rule of thumb refers to the \general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific 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 applied'Woulddependupon the same. \ •, Normally, recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe marketvalue by providingappropriate^escalationover the provedmarketvalue ofnearby lands\ in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there A is no evidenceofany contemporaneous]saletransactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelandsin the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the'subject acquisition by.onlyafewyears, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond that it. may be unsafe, even ifit relates 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 exampte,for determiningthe market-value ofa land acquired in '1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or ' ( I !.A.App.No. .11S5/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' I lA.App. No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur , acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears,\the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease." | I j

¶241his Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthfe ApexCourtinHaryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation\hSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods..Whatwas saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra)is:asunder:- i I "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or landswith different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination their value with referenceto previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoided anda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe samenotification."

¶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., SwamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Villlage Pochanpur at aprice whichvariedfrom ^52 lacsto ?62 lacsperacre.' •

¶26WhetheraforesaidSaleDeeds (Ex.PWJl/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetween:one set of co-OM^nersm^MdhaSwamiSatsang Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand'6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectt).ie correctmarketvalueof the landmthe villagesin questionis the mootiqi^estionwhichis required to be ansM^ered. Evidently,aforesaid'saleej^emplars, i.e., Sale Deeds lAApp. No 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal : ' AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwa.san l-A.App.No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I Page20 of29 (tx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetliat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning tiiereby, thfe entire land of the saje exemplars^Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.p|v-1/10)did not command the same marketprice:It was dependentupon'thenatui-eand situationof tlie aforesaid lands. Evidence to establishithe advantagesattached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacldng.Therefore,thesesaleej^emplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acqiiiredlands in question.The special need of the purchaserof these a^ulturallands mVillage Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to| Ex.PW-I/10)has not been biought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had ttie purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid:saleexemplars been got examined,,,tlienit could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto '^ay suchahigh pricefor these lands. The special fancy of the puijchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas viho had purchasedmore tli^ 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitantprice in VillageMamurpurvideIs^eDeed executedon 25"' March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jat Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,thp kle exemplarof Village Mammpurwas discardedwhileholdingthatithe same camiotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.! '

¶27In the instantmatters, thoughthe land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has comein evidence that the acquiredlandswere beingu.sedfor a^iculmralpuiposetilltheir acquisition:Thus, it becomesevidentthat thl acquiredlands were not developedlands. No prudent person having!knowledge of prevailing I.A.APP. N", ,.105/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 'VZ' 1^'°' n'fnf AppealsofVillageBrjwasan -A.App, iMo. .111/^010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur marketprice 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 lexemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been; rightly discarded by the ReferenceCourt. j I

¶28So far as the sale exemplarof Village Samalldia(Ex.PW-1/11) reliedupon bythe appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantprice 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-]/ll) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11)vendorhad soldnot onlythe larii but the structurethereon includingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,lane, by-lane,etc., therefore, I it had fetched such a high price. In viewjthereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question. !

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice ofsimilarly ; situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whetheradoptionofL& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DetenninedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the tme market value of the acquired lands in question. |

¶30Parametersgoverningfixationofmark# value ofacquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad'-Urban Development Authorit)^HyderabadandOrs., 1995 (2) SCC ,305 are as under:-

¶12However, in either of the said cases whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe.acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedby sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tHe n&ighborhood lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectGdAppealsofVillageBharthal | ^ LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i • . IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur pg ^2 of29

¶31k or whetherit be the determinationofthe nmrketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith 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 salesUUots in the layouts, le ledupon by anyoftheparties,withrifkrenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifspidon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section () ofthe Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetched by the sales opheplots in layoutsofBuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of •he acquiredland with reference to\the relevantdate of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe %A Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasput and\increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto ^e made available in that regard Asmall percentage value of the landfound out accordingto its actual user since resort to the method cfgiving', increasedvalue for such bmldingpotentialityarises only %hen there is\o evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof dL^'nT that there was no immediate acXflLT-ifformed in the In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionbf|rateofland cliargedby theDDAafteracquiringthe agriculturallands^developingthe same,and transfemngperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableio rely upon the allotment ratos/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoming undevelopedfreehold lands. Following^the dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in JaiSingh (Supra) and Smhil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the . developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of - .App. No. 113/2010&connectedappealsofVillagePochanpur i . ' Page23of29 the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA ratesfor allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DetenninedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is Iwhetherprogressiveincrease methodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue ofthe land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland.othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argiik by Mr.Sai^ay Poddar, learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for |the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarlca;Thase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the LandAcquisitionCollectoris more thanthe aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enliancement granted .by the Reference Court is unjustified. ' I i I .i

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra),'cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentqf the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5.yearsand beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring'land. What may be a lehablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew,years,may becomeunsafe and unrehablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIIS ofsixteeri'yearsand therefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market valuei% providing appropriate per amium is taken from the LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&cohnectedAppealsof'VillagePochanpur u escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the • ^ respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that -the Reference Court has I "• granted escalation @ 12% per annum, iwhich is unwaiTanted as a cooidinatebench of this Court in Sushil\K\umar(Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After havirjg perused the decision in i SushilKumar (Supra), I fmd that 10%) iucrease on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been*grantedand so, by relying I upon SmhilKumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @12%) per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%lperannum.In this viewof the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice ofthe agriculturalland in Delhi,'bythe ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%,per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof'theminimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. 1''April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deservesto be further increasedor not. ••I I' • , "i-\

¶36Adoption of Goverrunent'sminimuhi,jatesof agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by the learnedcounsel for:appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^'^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three ^dllages in question to be urban.It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthatby itselfis not sufficientto ITX.App.No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan W.App, No. 111/2010&c6nnectedAppealsofVillagePpchanpur # presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any.developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands Ui question. Not only this, even the sale! exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein pricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialit)^ofthe ^ acquired lands upon change of their use ^post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on o-;hfksale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)withqut leading any evidence to establishthat-thequalityand potentialityof:the sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur'andthe sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are compa|ailewiththe acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot|be: treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhil^ relying upon the aforesaid V~N, ^ _ I sale instances.Therefore,in view of the ^fore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryam State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensiiondeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum^price fixed by the Government^o^ the agriculturalland in Delhi, which -generally factors in the rige 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&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur m would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown,Govermnent'sminimumagriculturalpricehas been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe|marketvalue of the; acquired lands in JaiSingh(Supra)as well as inSuskilKumar(Supra)andIfmd no reasonto take adifferentviewthan the! one whichhad been taken by coordmate Bench•of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)andSuskilKumar(Supra).

¶38This Court is of the consideredview that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has lightly relied upon the Govermnent'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue oftheAcquiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterojVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exe'mplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfind thatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthb iGI'Airport,IndianOil and BharatPetroleumDepots and of Railwayline passingthrough Village Bharthal,and there,beinga 100 meters vi^de road starting from Mli-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there! being Farm Houses in the vicinityofthe acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionIofthis Court, on accountof aforesaid,locationaladvantages,the acquirediknds in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the AApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur / V, settled legal position aptly highlightedby ^ihe Apext Court in Mirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, inthesewords:- "When once, a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility'ofthe acquiredland being,usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasem priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality. " i

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be veiy difficultto provide a definitevalue qua potential,and in view ofthe fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is bioadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagpPochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants-.,of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan.However, while relyingjupon the decisionin Sushil Kumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10%iincreaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdetermined/bythe ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding:10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof LA.App. No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthese threevillagesin questionis determined@|?16,50,000/-per^^JSlforthe Categoiy ^A' land and @^14,69,600/-pp l^ka for the Category'B' lands in question. V-jJ\ Ii'

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in' the compensation awarded, statutor}^benefitsas per the Land AcquisiliiohAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are gianted, exceptfor the periodwherethereis ''a delayin filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the e^ancedcompensationshall be paid.Iheseappellantswouldbe entitled^tq proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid tenns with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby|eitherside with the Registrar (jeneralofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. | January 06, 2012 pkb W.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur r\' (S'UNILGAUR) JUDGE P'a-l -# / ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT;NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 ! I RANBIRSH™ : Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocke. JN-lr-Rohtas,Advocate.' Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand A4r.H.S.RauteIa,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) A Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefor Mr.R.S.Tomar. I Mi-.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates I ; versus -. IM[0NOF INDIA,&ANR. ^: p j . rj.. ' ^^ Respondents nrough: :Mr.SanjayPoddar,Senior-Advocatewith Mr.SanjayPathaic,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand . Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.EaumudiKiran, Advocatesfor LAC/Uqi ; JA.AjayVerma,Mr.S.ICSethi,Ms. AmitaSingh ^.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalShaimaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: ; , . HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESUNILGAUR ", ORDER :

12.01.2012 £M^Appl.No. 752/2019.fHf^. Ihis IS an applicationfor seeldngtjjpbgraphicalcorrectionin Orderof6"^ January,2012. I Counselappearingfor the appellantsjhave acceptedtlie notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 • 'm-.. i?' ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typogiaphicalerror 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 counselappearingfor the appellants.Acccjrdingly,this applicationis allowed:and it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no; 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe carriedout forthwith. | In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicatioiistandsdisposedof JANUARY 12,2012 .pkb I ' LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 79/2012 SMT. RAJ UPPAL Appellant Through: Mr. S-K. Rout, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay KumarPathak,Advocatefor R-1/UOI Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR