Jai Singh and Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm ' .-j; •* % .+ •• IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludpment Reserved On: 19^^ August 2011 ludament Delivered On: 1&^ September. 2011 LA-APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2pil (Crbss-Objectlon) RAJ SINGH ... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocatp Mr.Deepak KhosIa, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. '• . -Vs.- UOI &ANOTHER ... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate & Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin , Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kaomudi: KFran, Advocates for R-1 V'- • AND • . ' ' .-f LA.APP. 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 1007/2010: & CM No.15181/2011, LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.APP. ,a010/2010, LA.APP; 1036/2010 & CM No.12865/2011, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP. 6/2011 ,& CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/20li, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011,1 LA.APP.; 161/2011, LA.APP. 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011, LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP. 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011, LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP. 375/2011,. LA.APP. 386/2011, LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011, LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP 407/2011. . ' ; (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated

15.09.2000 & Award No. 06/2002-2003, Village-BhalswaJahangir Puri) ' AND " • LA.App.No,999/2010 & connected matters • Page ! of22-r + LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.l2871/201i; LA.APP. 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 202/20il, LA.APP. 216/20li, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, LA.APP^243/2011. LA.APf 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, C^AP P. 323/201; . LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & aO[on:5TM72011, LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.i5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011. (Relating to Notification u/Sec.

30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village-Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri) CORAM: HON'BLE MR; JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the.judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment shbuld be,reported in the • Digest? > PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

1.: 1 proceed with an apology to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time then to a notification issued prior in point of time; but the reason is that learned counsel for owners had. addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had . required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to notification which wa^ issued earlier in point of time. . ;2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the reveinue estate,of village Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri Was acquired pursuant. •; LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . Page'2of22: . =to a. notification

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, nannely, 'Reliabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 1.7.04.2001. After following due process, Land Acquisition Collector announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigha, is equivalent to ?13.82 lal<hs per acre i.e. fair nnarl<et value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed at ?13.82 lakhs per acre. '

¶3Dissatisfied with assessment made by Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section. 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Singh 1/5, , Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or ^14,56,9,63 per acre.

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

01.04.2000, notified vide Circular V

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

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on

15.09.2000, but learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days

(a) 12% per annum with reference to the base d.a.te 1.4.2000 and the price ^3.82 lakhs per acre.' LAApp.No.999/2010& connectedmatters l ; Page3 of22 ...J

¶5. Another parcel of ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in same revenue estate of village Bhalswai' Jahangfr Puri was acquired pursuant to a. notification issued under Section of the Land Acquisition Act 18,94,

30.07.1998, for the same public, purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on

04.08.1998. After following due process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed fair riiarket value of the acquired at ^2,33,333 per bigha is equivalent to ^11.20 lakhs per acre. , ,

¶6Dissatisfied with assessment made by . the Land ; , Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/2008 titled. Chandrawati Vs:. Union of India, assessed the.fair market value of the acquired at ?11,46,670/- per acre. The difference i in destination reached is on same reason as noted hereinabove pertaining to the notification dated 15,9.2000.i.e. , , the learned Land Acquisition Collector adopting the land rate notified by the Government with effect from

1.4.1997 vide circular dated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference-Court granting enhancement @ li% per annum for the interregnum, period.

¶7The Union of India as well as the owners have challenged the assessment made by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page 4 of22 • Court by .way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned' - . above.:

¶8On behalf of ..owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was, placed on following , documentary evideiice:-

(a) The rate notified, by the L&DO vide notification

16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase in. respect of developed residential commercial properties owned by. ^L&DG. Relying on this ; document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the ^ rate of residentiajland in~Azadpur,which is stated to be close to village Bhalaswa Jahangir Purl, was fixed at ?5830/- per square meter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per acre ,and it was urged if 50% is 'deducted towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of , ^1,17,96,200/-per acre.

(b) The rate charged by MCD for allotment of . commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in , ^ ' terms of the Resolution No:705 dated 23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby jVlCD decided to allot .: developed plots to the transporters

(a) ?425/- per square meter and Exhibil; PW-3/2, a copy of the . ..Resolution No.610 dated

21.02,2005, whereby MCD decided to allot the plots,in Sanjay Gandhi Transport ~ Nagar @ ?4,500/- per square ,metre were urged to be / material good evidence. Relying on these - ' .LA.App;Nq.999/2010& coimectedmatters • Page5 of 22 ^ h documents, learned counsel for owners, argued rate stated in resolutions i aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, ~ would evidence that fair market value of developed land comes to ^17,19,857/r per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the . development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to ^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be ^24,76,592/-per acre.

(c) Learned counsel for the Jand owners also placed reliance on the aijction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3).. While relying on the brochure of DDA pertaining to the year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price , ranging between ?23.72 lakh to ^28.4 lakh, according to learned counsel translates to a price of . ^14,36,36,363 per acre counsel urged suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land.

(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ ^32,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, . learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes , to ?56,93,163/- or ?11,86,169/- per bigha. It . was LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page6 of22 contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, after making a reasonable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricultural in village Bhalswa ,' Jahangir Puri. Another.-sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby measuring 4^16 bigha situated in revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ?26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged was. in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair rqarket value of land in the said village as of the date of the agreement to sejl i.e; 5.8.1996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of IJnion of India relied on a Sale Deed dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2), whereunder 1-03 bigha of land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was sold at a price of n,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per annum is to be given on said value,, the price as on the date of the notification under Section 4 comes to n,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available in the, same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt the price of.developed iiand for LA.App.No.999/201.0.&connectedmatters,' Page7of22 fixing ma.rl<et value of undeveloped agricultural having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition CoHector has assessed fair market value of the land at a' price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 so has the learned Reference Court. .

¶10It may be noted that when, judgment was reserved in the above captioned matters on 19"^^ August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgment in a batch of land acquisition appeals, lead, matter being LA.App.No.266/2008 titled laiSingh 1/5. (JO! & Ann in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals learned senior, counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted in response to arguments of learned . counsel for the owners, the arguments he had advanced on earlier occasion may be treated as his response..

¶11The' topography of village Bhalswa jahangir Puri has 'come out in the deposition of Shri TrilokChand {HalqaPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No-.112A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5 Union of India in which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the Ai<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. His testimony would reveal that village Kadjp^ur and Libaspur are situated, in the North, villages Mukhmeipur, and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badii and Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola and. Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of village Jahangir . LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters "Page8of22

¶121 may additionally note ,that lay out . plan of the. National Capital Territory of Delhi, published by Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on, the eastern side of GT.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said . village was for re-settlement of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the character of urbanization in;..the area was of a. kind where potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak . nature. In the decision reported as Amar Singh l/s. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period of emergency i.e, the year 1975-

¶76It has to be remembered that the two subject acquisitions , were also for re-settlement of,slum and J.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Singh 1/5. UOi & Ann was reserved on 12.8.2011 had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 I would highlight while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi,Khurd Bawana, I had noted topology of the area LA.App.Nd,999/2010& connectedmatters Page9 of22', constituted a 'V at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 Rohtal<, Road i.e. NH-lO bifurcated at ,a • connnnoh point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi iviandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereinabove : and abuts towards the east of NH-1.

¶15In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notifications issued in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.,. In' those cases, learned counsel for the owners had relied upon sale deed

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) sale deed

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. same sale deeds on learned counsel for owners have-placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para

(d)_ of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale .deeds for the reasons^ recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21.. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ?26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ^63,478 Igkhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has' rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all.the villages In question on reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' an^ Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for reljgious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' , Page10 of22 A been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" as per the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organization had to pay the price for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite-size suitable for ; requirement of the organization and,is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) sec ,717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. isti Roiiini & Ann (Refer para 6). and 2009 (14) SCC i^otid. Raufuddin ]/s; Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to b@ ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in. an area for reason there may be special circumstances' which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed'seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the,fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has - studied the market and has apprised himself of all available in the area; has understood • topology of the area, and the prevailing prices. If a V , buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of larid, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I,do not highlight that the .Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated

20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learne'd Reference Court pertaining to the notification

27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ^17,74,109/- per acre as against price comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28.89 ' lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010,&connectedmatters Page11 of22 Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other. ,

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

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratap Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs 1/5. UP! & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural , land for expansion of its factory which had been , ignored by the learned Reference Court on ground that L&T had a. fancy for the said land and ^ hence price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the, parcel of land being large,, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as .the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3''^ the price arrived at would be the same as would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmatters Page 12 of22 produced by the Government were giving a price of ^1,37,000/- per bigha sale deed under L&T had purchased the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- was near .about the price of ?2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'' would be deducted from the sum of ?3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of sale was 1993 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995

16.11.1995 Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, I have ' hereinbefore already noted inherent ^ contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."

¶16For the reasons therein, I-reject these two sale deeds in present case also as reliable good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. . '

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

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ?15,70,0D0/-. . .

18... Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was n5,70,000/- . per acre as on

01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters •- Page13 of22 . difficult to comprehend abnormally high value as per Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8,4|.199,6 in which the stated price is ?18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the firice was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the price fell to ^15.7 l^khs per acre. I need to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the learned Reference Court, \i4h\\e • examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opined that the said price wa^ for special 'considerations not the price settled between an informed willing buyer an informed willing seller without being influenced by special needs pertaining to a particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large : track of land had to be fixed. . '

¶19I have discussed this issue in my decision

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Singh l/s. UO! & Ann \.ei . where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither buyer hor seller being well-informed and there being a special feature qua the land and, have held the same not to be good evidence to deterniine fair market value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price, paid by a buyer smitten with fancy,, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reiterate the same.

¶20As regards auction rates of developed plot of land situated, in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, I do not find, any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the owners concur with decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs

29.and 30 which are premised oh the decision of the Supreme Court reported as La! LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page 14 of22 / j Chand Vs. Union of India 2009

(15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to tine evidence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by. DDA. ,21. In my decision

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 Jai Singh Vs. UOi & Ors., I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case with reference to price at which developed plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in iai Singh's case are extracted hereunder:- .{

¶29Now, we do not have :evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in same . factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the_ Supreme Court in Lai Chand's case (supra), render this evidence as most unreliable to determine ; . the value of land in the subject cases.

¶30It is no doubt true, as held even by the learned Reference Court, with ,the development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but question would be what would, be value to building potentiality would translate itself.

¶31I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in' view observation findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself ,to the value, 1 promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while f ' shall be discussing as to what, should be me fair.: market value of the lands. - .LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' Page 15 ot22 fl:

¶22Highlighting in La! Chancfs case (supra) Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless was too inchoate wherefrom fair marl<et value could be crystallized. '

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

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lease-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chahds case (supra) wherein this kind of. evidence was specifically discussed discarded with reference, to village Rithala where lands were acquired fot^ Rohini Residential Scheme, I negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi

758.01 - bigha and 929.05 bigha. '

¶25From the topology of the area and as per the testimony ofTrilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2.in ,LAC : l\lo.ll2A/2008 it emerges that village Burari is on the east of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and indeed the plan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Pun, and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from , the Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page 16 of22 Ci/ thius the fair marl<et value of land on a particular date In the two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessing the fair market value of the land situated in village Burari, which was acquired, pursuant to notifications

24.07.1998

18.07.2003 issued under Section of the Land Acquisition Act, I had considered material on record i.e. evidence in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. 1/5. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, I had assessed the fair market value of agricultural land at ?11,60,580.82 per acre for Category A land, ^10,44,522.73 per acre for . Category B ^9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification

24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant,to notification

18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at ^19,20,568/- per acre for Category A land and ^17,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. In iai Singh's case [supra), I had assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages as^under:- S.Np. Village Nanie Date of Notification under Section Fair market value (in jakhs per acre)

1.. Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 . ^14:75 for Category 'A' fl4.3728 for Category .'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8.2000 n4.75

¶3Bawana .

7.8.2000 fl4.75 for; Category 'A' ^14.38125 for Category 'B' .

¶4• Khera Khurd

11.9.2000 , ^14.835 . for .Category 'A' n4.46413 for Category 'B' i;A.App.No;999/2010& connectedmatters n)^

¶5, Narela

2.5.2001 ?16.165 , . for Category 'A' n5:76087 for Category 'B'

¶6;Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B' ,

¶7Alipur

22.8.2001 ?16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811, for Category 'B' ,8. Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 ?

16.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.295 Jl. Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ^8.655 :

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth

27.1.2003 • f19.435 for Category 'A' ^8.94:912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Kalan -27.1.2003 a9.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C - 21: In Jai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed hninimum.land rates enhanced-by the Government from time to time' and found the same not to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters V Government officers and had found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Singh 1/5. UP! & Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander \/s. UOI, 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh 1/5. UP! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 l^ahender Singh Vs. UP! & Prs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and'other evidence land price was determined on various dates between the years 1993 to 1996 and in relation to the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 t© 53 of the said ^ decision as; under:- "50. !rhe aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding • paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural in Delhi over the years commencing froin the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ?^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and th6 average price increase would be 16.436%. The price f . rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by - 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. I as of 1.4.2001. It shows due to urbanization, between the year 1990. and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gairafs case (supra),, which I have discussed in para, 49 above.

¶51I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gairais case. Discussing evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras'9 to 17 . •. •LA.App.NG.999/2010&connectedmatters Page19 of22 ^3 Court discussed valuation on basis of , agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre • per annum was ^95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized tlie land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second ; /. method of prices' of comparable lands in the. , , . .surrounding areas including potentiality, in para - . . ; onvyards the Court discussed the. matter with reference-to - ' land prices in adjoinitig village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up based on sale instances, found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to ?10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then ;^. . , considered the prices notified by the Government as per : policy

1.4.1997 and thus worked out the. mean f average figure of ?9J6vl2:l/-^^p acre for Category 'A' _ lands and f9,51,121/- ptf'acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality, had been . ; well-factored in when Governrnent issued the. . minirnum price notification w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidencecj by ' the fact that even with respect to sale transactions Court found that as against the minimum price notified : as of 1.4.1997 at ?10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were ; '. highlighting that the price was ^10,03,364/- per acre. : 52. The decision in Mahender Singh's case, pertaining to. village feawana, referred to by me in para 49 above,; highlights with reference to. para 28 to 31 of the decision ' . that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, • c commercial industrial future exploitation %f . agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality ' had noted notwithstanding Master Plan so. ' projecting lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year, 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with Division Bench wa-s ^ ' concerned, virtually no. development had taken place in . village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody hap exploited the potential. 'As | haye already highlighted in' .. para 49 above there is a gap between what would be. expected to be the market growth and what th& market - , actually grows. The, deGisions in .Gairafs caise and LA:App.No;999/20r0& coimectedmatters Page20 of22 .T>l Mahender Singh's case highlight potentiality . / translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about

16.5% per annum thereafter extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to betweeh 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to .be developed, both residential,• conimerciaL industrial probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of. the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in : respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given ^ j good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given V further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not V ' relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002, fair market value of agricultural lands would be ^19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning " • l .bigha and 13 biswa, of land was sold for ^5,39,690/- and ^70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + 1^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ^17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record^ , by either parties other than the: minimum price notified by the' Government from time to time, I hold Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle . h:as relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct-appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date of the notification issued under -LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters , Section 4 of tlie Land Acquisition Act and finding no scope to furtiier enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss ail appeals and cross objections, whether filed by the land owners or the Union,of India.,

29.. I: leave the parties to bear their own cost. 2D1 (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm ^ ,LA.App.No.999/2010& coimectedmatters . Page22 of 22 nJ^

$-58 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 323/2011 JAI SINGH AND ORS Appellants Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG