Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as Ranbir Sharma vs. Union qf India & Anr.'. UR JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IN TUE WGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Lc?.ycc. On: Jqnwiry

(GRJ1)-A) LA.APP. I 195/2008 (VILLAGE-I3HA RTHAL) RANT3JR SHARMA . Appellant I'hrough Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr..Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, MsSmita Maan, Mr.R.S,Venna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates MrAnand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohias. Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godára, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr,H.S,Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.R.outray, Mr.M..Azarn Ansari. Advocates MrTankLaJ \7ivei.:, Advocate MrRajesh Yada, Mr.Deepak. Khosla, Mr.Sai.nit Khosla and Mr. Dhananay l\4ehlawat, Advocates M.r.ftS.R.auteia, Advocate J'Ir.1.S.!.)ahy. Adtocate IVIr.Sandccp Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul .Fripat.h, A.d1 OCaLc. .Mr.N.S..Negi and Mr.Ei.S.R.auteia, (.i.dvocaes f respondem in appa!s filed by U(Ji,) versus .

LNION 0!' INI)IA & ANR. esr)ondenIs '1 hruuh T\/lr.Sanjay iddur. Sen 'r i d''.:catc i.viti i/1I.Stii\ tdti1ah 1 ! k) . it1 d( .h n .J\4s.1c..K.auniudj iKiran. Advoaies fcw !..A;c:( 101 i\4r.Aay \:'erira, Ms.k3ccna.shaw Snt. fVlrIV!ukesh K umar Mr ¶?. . Sc Liii, 1\4r.Pawun Mathur. Mr. K unal Sharina, Advoe.i; Ir [)D/' } o > I "I, \PI ° ( j . :1\4J\io. . N 51 0J0U; (Cross(DbTc1Ii.I1; I; N. I I9,/OI)I & crnec1ed /'pp(l1Is I 'i I I jjg Bhjr! hIlt \lIIJ. tthl. 294/20:tC (oJ( - 'd /\ppJI1 Of VIIt: 1 e BiPva ,,lrl nc.c.dApp o\IIuI. Focrimpllr (ross-•(.)hject:ins .. C Rross Objeettons): 1 Cios(.)bjeutions): l.A. AP P.701 /2008 & Y. UI 'rj . LA.A.PT..77 I /2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA..APP.772/2008; J.A .APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA..APP.774/2008 '&. CM.No.6 11112009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP,776/2008; 1,A.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; 1,A.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP. 798/2008 & CMNo.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.93 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 1 795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 14/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.8 1 8/2008; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008: LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No709/2009 (Cioss-Objections); 1-.A.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986i'2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP. I 029/2008& CM No. 17340/2008 (CrossObjcctions); LA.APP. 1031/2008 & CIvLNo. 17335/2008 (Cross-(-Ybjections);

1.A.A.P1 1 . 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; .1.A,APP. I 047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& M.No.78511/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420122009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,1 050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 1 7262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1 052/2008; LA.APP. 1 053i'2008 8. CM.No.41 6/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM,No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 055/2008;LA..APP. 1057/2008 & CM No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 058/2008& CM.No. 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1059/2006 & CM.No.i 7259/2008(Cross-Ohjeetions); IA. APP. I 060/2008;LA.APP. 1062112008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (CrOss-Objections);

1.A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections);. LA.APP. I 084/2008& CM.Nô. 17302/2.008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); .LA.APP. I 087/2008& CM.No.61 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 093.12008; A.APP.] 094/2008; LA.APF. 1095/2.008; I AAPP. II 03/2008 & CM.No.441 /2009 Cros-Objections)JA;APP. 1108/2008 &

04.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Object.ions) LA.APP. 1. 109/2008: LA.APP..1 I 10/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. L.A.APP..] 111/2008; 1.A.APP. 1112/2008 & . CM....3831/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA..APP. 11 13'200 & . CM.No.3 826/2009 ((:)ss-objections); I...A.APP.. 1115/2008; LA.AP 111 6/2008; LA.APP. 1121/2008; 1 A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP. 1129/2008 & 0M.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131./2008 Sr. . 04.No.566/2009 (Cross-Ob)ecti.ons); I ,A.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP. 11 35/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); I A.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (C•ross-Objections); LA.,APP. I 140/2008; LA.APP.1 156/2008; LA.APP.I 157/2008; LA..APP.I 158/2008 & CM.No.7774!2009 Cross-Objections); LA.APF. 1159/2008; LAAPP. 1161/2008; L.A. .APP. 1166/2008; i.A. APP. I I 6'7/2008 & CM.No. 802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1168/2008; LA.APP. 11701/2008; LA.APP. 1171/2008; LA.APP. 1172/2008: LA..APP. 1173/2008; I ..A.A.PP. 1.1 75/2008; L.A.APP. I 178/2008; LA.APP.1 179/2008; LA.APP. 1181 /2008; I .A..APP. 1182/2008; LA.APP.1 I 83/2008& CM.No.6933.'2009 (Cross-Objections); .. IA,,APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. 11 85'200 LA.APP .1.1 86/2008& CM.No.701 3/2009 A App, No. 195/2005 & r:onnected Aopeals of Village liharthel A Ape. No. 29/1/20.10 & conr.ected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No. 1 1,0010 & corineciea Appeais of Village Pochanout (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1190/2008: LA.APP. 1 191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008; LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP. i1O/2008; LA.APP. 12 11/2008; LA.AP1. 12121/2008; LA.APP.121 3/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP:1226/008; LA.APP. 124 1/2008& CM.No.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections'); LA.AP.P. 1243/2008; LA.APP.1 252/2008; I A.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008; LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008; 1,A.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7 103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; 1,A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. I 09/2009: LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. I 35/2009; LA.AJ1. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009; I A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; I A.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009: LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.201/2009; LA.APP,202/2009: 1,A.APP.203/2009: LA.APP.208/2009 & CMNo.7027/2009 • (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2 10/2009 & CM. No.970/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2 11/2009; 1,A.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP227/2009; LA.A.PP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24 1/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; 1,A.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; .LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA..APP.305/2009; .i..A.APP.367/2009; 1,A.APP.437/2009; i...A.APP.447/2009; LA.APP,458/2009; .LA.Al'P.459/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.48 1/2009; 1,A.APP.489/2009; [A.APP.4901/2009; LA.APP.49 1/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LAAPP.495/2009; LA. APP.503/2009; LA.APP.506/2009; I A .APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2•009; L.:.APP. 509/2009: L A.APP.5 101/2009; I A APP 511/2009 LA APP 5122009 LA APP 513i2009 IA APP 567/2009 I A.APP.572/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.45/201 0; LA.APP.481201 0; AAPP.404/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011: LA.APP. ii 38/200& LA.APP.1 1761/2008; LA,APP.1 177/2008; LA.APP1201/2O0; !A.APP23 1/2009 (Relating to Notification No: F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 • issued under Section 4 of the 1..and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 datcd 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi)

(GR11)-13) h:Q± LLQ2.(LL2

1.A.APP. 294/2010 (ViLLAGE.- BIJWASAN). 1)i/VENI.)ER KUMAR . . . ...... Appellant Through: M.R. S..Fomar, Mr.Virendra Singh IA.,App. No 1195/2003 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal I .f\.App. No, 794/2010 & connected Apeals of Village Bijwasan A.App No IL /2.010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . . Advocates Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr. B. K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in,R-2-14. 38,41446, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOi ANR R.espondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kurnar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navljn Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC. Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed byUOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, '71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI MrJ3anky Bihar Sharina, Mr.Kunal • Sham-ia and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. I.A.APP. 1J/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.A.PP. 51/2010 A.A.PP. 52/2010 LAAPP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/20 10 LA.APP. 55/2010 l,A.APP 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 IA.App. 1 00/201 C) LA.APP. 221/2010 LA,APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. 226/2010

1.A.AT'P. 242,'2010 LA,APP. 246/2010 LA.APP, 27 7/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 !.A.APP. 282/201() LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 2841/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288.'201.0 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 2941/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA,APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 I A.APP, 346/2010 LA.APP 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/201() LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP .354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 3572010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LAAPP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 I APP 360'2010 I A APP 361/201 J PP 362/2010 LA APP 363/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/201.0 •LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP, 408/2010 LAAPP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/201(1 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 22/2010 LA.APP•. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LAAPP, 725/2010 LAAPP. 7262010 iA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP.• 731/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 I A APP 750/2010 1 A 'PP 75 0/20 Ii 1 A \PP 764/2010 1 A PP 828/2010 I A.APP 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 i.A.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 L.A.APP, 99/20 10 & LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objeOtions) (Relating to Notification No. F. i0(30)96-L& B/LA/1.3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land. Acquisition Act, 1 894 & . Award No. 28/2.002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) ANT) I.A Apo, No 1 15/•2oD8 & connected Appeals of ViIlge Bharthal I A.App Nc .29//QO & connected Appeals of ViHage Hijwasal) .,\ App. No. l.i / 101.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur p . . &s cLon.Deccmber]82oJj &Qfl./4ar O2Oj2 LA.APP 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCIIANPUR) SE.HAJ RAM AND OR.S. App'ellants Through: Mr.Bjj Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanlcj and Mr.S.K.Rout Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20,23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40,44 to49, 59 63 to 7 1 ) Mr.S.13. Kurnar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.N0• 61, 64, 5/201 1) Mr.R.ajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) versus lJNJQNj: JNI)JA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Saiijay Kurnar Pathak, Mr.Mohjtrao Jadhav, and Ms.NavJjn Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC .Mr.BanJce' Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharii'ja and Mr.Soner K.Seth, Advocates for r)DA. LA.App. 111/2010 iA.App. 160/2010 LA.APp, 228/2010 LA.App 254/2010 LA.App 292/2010 EA,.APP. 307/2010 LA.Aj>p. 395/2010 LA APP. 429/2010 LA.APP. 466/2010 LA.App 637/2010 LA .APP. 660/201 0 LA.App, 767/2010 LA.APp 919/2010 LA. APP. 65/201 1 LA.APP 120/2011 LA.APP 476/2011

1.A.,\11p 23/2011 LA.APp. 536/20 1 1 LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.App. 165/2010 LA.APp. 248/2010 LA.ApP. 260/2010 LA.App. 293/2010 LA.App. 31 7/2010 LA.APP. 396/201() I.,A.App. 432/2010 LA.App. 489/2019 LA.App. 639/201.0 LAAPP. 662/2010 LA.App, 768'201 o LA.App, 1052/201 0 LA.App. I 16 I -.,Mi I LA.App 121/2911 LA.APP. 485/2011 LA.App. 525/2011 LA.App. 554/2011 LA.ApP. 155/2.010 LA.App. 209/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 LA.APP 261/2010 LA.App. 305/2010

1..,A.APP 392/2010 .LA.AFP. 397/2010 LA.App, 433/2010 LA.APP. 577/2010 LA.APp. 640/2010 LA.App 74.1/2010 LA.App 784/2010 LAApp 6 1/201 1 LAApp. 1l7/20i J.A.APp. 129/201.1 .L.A.App. 521/2011 LA..App. 526/20jj. LA.APP. 591/20j1 LA.APp. 156/2010 LA.APp, 215/2010 LA.App. 250/2010 LA.APp, 270/2010 LA.APp. 306/2010 LA.App. 393,200 LA.App, 412/2010 LA.App. 434.'2010 LA.APp 635/2010 LA.App. 657/2010 LA.App. 75001 0 LA.App. 918/2010 LA.App, 64/2011 LA.APP 119/2011 LAApp 429/2011 LA.APp. 522/2011 LA.App 535/2011 1; App. & conn(cted Appeals of Village Oharthal LA.Ap0, No. 29412010 e corinecl(sd Appeals of\/iage Bijwasag No 11,2010 & conrjcctcd APPOaIS of Village Pochanpur (Relating to Notification No. P.10(3 0)96-L& B/LA! 13417 dated .13.12.2000 issued under Section.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUN1L GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012 I. Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of 1eaned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to • Notification No.F 10(3096-L& .B11,A11341 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. Acquisition process for planned development of Dwarka Phase-If in 1)elhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 131h f)ecember, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Lsttes including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur. Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003• Award No.28!2002-2003;and Award No.:30/2002_2003 granting compensation @ 13.82 lacs per acre for Hiock, 'A' (level field with top dii) and @ 12.32 lacs per acre for Block '13' (without top soil). . . . . I)issalisuied with the assessment of market 'value of their acquired IA.App. No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.Apc. No. 29d/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan li\App. No I 1./2o1o& connected Appeals of Village Pochanptir Page 6 Ot agricultural lands, appellants had sought refrence under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation (. i5.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and

13.36 lacs per acre for their Block '13' land in Vil1ges Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to \Jillage Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and .Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees iifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochañpur have sought compensatiOn at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape, of decisions in Executive Engineer, IS Karnutaka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246; An/ani Molu Dessai'vs. State ofGoa andAnr.,

(2010)13 SCC 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Deafl through LRs. Vs. Special Teh.sildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Rànvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; chindha Fakira Patil

(I)) through .LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of india, 2002(62) .I)RJ 22; Rama iVaiid (since deceased, through LRs vs. Union of India & Anr,, S 2002 65) DRJ I (DB); Udho Dass vs. Stale of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; chakas vs. State of .Punjah '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCA1J:: 362; Avinas/i Dhavaji Alailf vs. State of Mah.araslflrà, (2009) 11 SCC 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No 4143/203' titled as Snit. indu Klwrana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 2.6.03.2.010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K Raflq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, • A.App. No . !! ~,5 120()g & Connected Appeals of Village 3hartha • A.App. 00, 294/20.10 & connected Appeals of Village Oijwasan AApp. No 1 1/20.10 & connected Appeals of Village Pocbarper '' , . ft S Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development corporation, (201.0) 11 SCC 175; Risal Sing/i & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB; Lal chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbh.aj Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal andAnr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 . SCC 745; Mahes/, I)attatrap Tliirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of india & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361,; W.P.(C) No. .4284/2007 titled as Surat Sing/i vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; On, Prahasli (dead, by LRs and Ors i's. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Salpal & Ors vs. Union of india, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/,008 titled as Sushi! Kuniar i's. Union of India, dcided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of india, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhuie Ram vs. Union of India, 2010 (.1 70) i)L]' 371. . . . On the strength of the aforesaid decjsjbns, at the very outset, it was urged by 1\4r.13.S.Maan, learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its pOtential which must be adjudged keeping in viw the development in the area over a peiod of time and the same cannot he limited to the near future alone. was pointed out by Mr.R.SToinar, couisei for appellants that I)eJ.hi-RewariJodhpii. broad gae raivay line. of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two pans, on the eastern side of the railway 1in i the tOl Aftpo, New I)elhi A Aop. No. 1200 & Connec1ed Appeals of Village Rharthal IA pn. Na .... 4/2O.1O & coilnected Appeals of Village llijwasan A.i\pp. No sI 1120] 0 & concocted /\ppeals of Villago Pochanpur and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Mufti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-Il again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where 101 Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are locatedon the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.SoJanl(j learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthai was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 :lbr development of I)warka Phase-i and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and DhoOl Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizras/rriap to highlight that the boundary ol Village Bhartlial, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are Contiguous. 8, It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.•S..Maa, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has thiled to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to he agricultural in spite of Notifjcatjo, of 16t1i October, 2000 \'ide which land use Of the three villages in question was changed fi'om agriculturai to residentjal/ cornmerciaj/industrial etc. and infact the ehtire land of Village Bhárthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notlhcatu)ri of24tu1 October, 1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appe11ants that the alrcsaid to Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama I /\.App. No. I 95!200N & conrIectd Appeals of Village Bharthaj A App, No 294/20io & connected ApeaN of VHlage Bijwasan No. In/,oio & connecto Appeals of ViUage Pochanpur Pagc9of9 • H Reddi & Ors. M. Land Acquisition Officer, Hydera/jad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been Considered by the Apex Coup in its later decision in Who Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCAL1 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in View the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to .a near future alone and if after the acquisItiofl if the authorities do not put the land tany use, it would not mean that there is no building potential itv 1 0. Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the Seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from T52 lacs to !62 lacs and merely because of the said variation these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Coup, because there is no basis to conclude that these s1e exemplars ate Overvalued because of any special advantage s and as per settled legal proposition laid down by, the Apex Court in Anjaizi Mo/u Dessai State of Goa andA,71A

(2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars oughto be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to 157 Jacs per acre and Since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the Comparable sale instances, therefore. reliance placed by the Reference Coup upon the mjnjrnu rates/circle rates for deteiining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous 1 1. Assessment of market value of the aqujred land was sought by Mr.R.Gdara learned counsel for , the appellants on the hsis of the L& Do rates ixcd by the Governicnt and also on the basis of pre-deterflhjned rates fixed by the Go\'ernhiiCnk for allotment Of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001 Keepiri.g in view the location, situation and Potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is I A Apr, No. 1..19S/7008 & Connected Appeais of VHIa BhartiaI IA App No. 294/2010 & connected Appe of Village Bijwasan A App No. 1.1J/2p J & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu Page 10 of 2.q H sought on the strength of sale exemplars oI Village Pochanpur and Village Sarnalkha or alternatively on the basis of the IA DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-J)etcrmined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant lthpulse India Private Limited of 1A. App. NC). 295/2009 has assailed the impugned jUdgment on the following grounds:- 'Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.2612002-2003 dated

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

77.2007) Does not account for the tici that the Public Notice claied 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area fOr more than 15 years before the Notflcation under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issied by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the i/on 'hie Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus TOhvildar, 2010('3) SCC 661. Ignores the evidence and other fOctors which as per GO established law has to he cons ictred b(-, Ore ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition.. ) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the la established by the Hon 'h/c Supreme court in the recent case of Ghinda Fakir Paiil versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal P'. 5475 of 2007. The [Ion 'h/c Supreme Court has specifIcally held that Sale Dcccl showing higher rate should not he disregarded in I A.App, No, 1195/2008 & connoc1ed Appeals of Village Rharthal A.App. No. 29410.10 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan .A,App. No. 1112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanour • case the average sale price is lower. Fuiher in Anjana Molu Dessaj vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme C"ourt has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging, of diffErent types qf sales transactions should he considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) J?euied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LA C No. 97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and Z13,36, 000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the lion 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Rain vs. State (# Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a conseque;2ce the impugned judgment refused to return an actual finding on the issue Na.] . framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation 0/Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool kSiras and Bharthál was changed and these area,5 ceased to he agricultural and ) came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and A'oiI[2catj.()fls of Government for land use change show, that in ftu,e ind can he subjected to residential commercial and other permissible uses, it is also pertinent to mention that the cppeilant lead evidence in respect o/'ihe 74th thnendn'ient of the Constitution f India, v. ef 1.6. 1993 IX A, by • virtue of which the Municzai (]orporthon Act was amended and the area where the land is situcjiec-was deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor - was elected from there. No Panchayai elections •were held in the area. l) Refused to apply the law laid aYwn in AIR Supreme court 3467, Ranvir Sing/i and Any vs. Union of India and refjed to consider the tact that the dve/opñieni in the area has a direct qff&I on theprice that a willing purchaser would pay far the. subject land, '•) Ignored the fact that Rcspohclent No, 2 hctd also LA.App No. 1195/ 2008 & connected Appeals of Village tiharthal l.A.App, No, 29't/2O10 & connectcd Appeals of Village Bijwasan A App. No, .11.1/2010 & Connc.ctp Appeals of Village Pochar,ur V . auctioned similarly situated land as commercial llocks at the rate of aboui Z2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped lai'çl. .1) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determned auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k,) 1)oes not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired/or development purposes of Dwarka Phase H. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthai was changed and these areas ceased to be agricuitural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. 1) ignored NotUlcations dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 . . although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 .SCC 661 it was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to he used jr building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered.

iii) The presence of a number o/ buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lancJc have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near Ji.iture.

¶3In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have been provided With a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementing the aforesai.d arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants; it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of .t.App. No. .11952008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l.A.App. NC). 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasn .A.tpp, No. 31112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ,. '4 • urbanization of the lands in the Villages in quetioii, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirtlikar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kàpil Me/ira (Major General) & Ors. Vs. (Inion of India & Anr, 1.76(2011) DL1' 361 and that Pre-l.)ctermjncd Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to asess the correct market value of the acquired lands. ThUS, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51 A of Lana' 4cqujsiii0n Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot he taken as relevant evidence 1°F determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct arket value •of•the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in JaiLal vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 22.7, SaIpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) Ii SCC 423; La! (hand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumw' vs. Union o/india, decided on26.09.201 i , it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot he taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in ôviderce the seller I.A.App No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A.App No. 294/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village BiJwasan A.App No .........'7.010 & Connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . H and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usuai prçvalcnt trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Saisng, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& 1)0 rates/Pre-J)Qlcrmjned Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushij Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So fur as potentiality of the land is concered, it was urged by M.r.SanJay .Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross S objcctors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the . nlinimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 1201/0 per annum, market value of. the acqurc• lands has been erroneously dctermin.d by the Reference Court, as j Suthil Kumar (supra) apprec1ati() ( 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be mc)djfied deietig the enhancement by the I.cfcrencc Court while taking iito consideration the appreciation @ 121/0 per annum and the same deserves to he brought in line while granting appreciation 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. 1 7. Afler considering the rival st.ih.misjn5; advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal Of the impunedjudgmneni the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges i that the true arket value oF the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to JA.App. No. .A./\pp, No. a willing i11: & connected Appeal. of Village I3harth: 294/2010 & connected AppealS of Village Bijwas A.Ap. No j .L/2jo & connected AppaIs 01 VWage Pocharpur seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to he considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in (Idho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- '(i,) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population; the suitability oft/ic acqujred land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; possibility of obtaining water and electric supply fbr occupants of buildings to he put up on that land; absence of stat utorv impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purpose, existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or devetoped residential extensions in the vicinity or close proxinlily oft/ic acquired land, (vi,.) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the li/ce in the surrounding

areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers 0/ buildings, if built on the acquired land, and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand /r building purposes, to specify afew.

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factOrs. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to.. hear •in mind the purpose for A.App N, 1.19,/7008 & Connected Appeals of VHage 13harthal .AAep, No 294/2010 & connectcd Appeals of Village l3ijwsari LA.tpp. Nc,, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur '5 - 4' 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 Ai'inash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has beeh held by the Apex Court in Alma Sing/i (supra) that the. exemplrs of s!all pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not he a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & 14nr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialhy of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to then-i even as regards future prospects, there is nojustification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land. It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the: agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with advantage. 2 1. Apex Court in Valliyaminal (Supra). while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40 1Xo towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mo/u Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- A.App. No. L05/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthi /\.App. No. 294/2010 & c:onnectd Appeais of Vil!age Bijwsan I..A.App, No.1,112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpiir Page 170129 "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar linds, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a hona fide transaction., will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a harrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclsed in respect qf two sales are markedly diffrrent, 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 other price g'epressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted ta'

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made S by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Paul . (Supra), which are as loliows:- 'Ii is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the honafIde sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between veasonahie prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the markei value. :3. Principles to determine the: markel: value of the acquired lands as '1 reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Naturiil Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONG(.) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on .four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area: availabliTh.' of land fr development in the area, and the demand for lazd in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the v/cm/tv, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps: I.A.App. No. 3195/2008 & connected Appeals of VHage Bharthai A.App No. 294/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasari l/\.Apo. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochar.pur • . On the other hand, in urban or semi-uihan areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some 1hockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand Jbr, land, the escalations, in prices have touched een 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated fr years or rose marginally at a nominal rath of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a sign ificant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semjurban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it; that is ahoit 5% to 75% per annum. 777is rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to he adopted in the absence of cleai-and specific evidence relating to increase In Prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase ; or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in price, then the increase to he applied vouid depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by pro viding approTriale escalation over the proved rnrket value of nearhv lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any conlen:2lx)rifleous sale transactions or acquisitions 0/comparable lands in the neighbourhoodd. The said method is reasonably safi where the relied-on_sale lransactions/acqujsjt/,)fls precedes the suhiect acquisition by on/v a few years, that is upto ur tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even ft relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard f the gap is only a few years, may become unsaft and unreliable standard where ih gap is larger. For example. tbr determining the market value of a land acqufied• in 1992, adopt/hg the annual increase method .i.'ith r,terenc'e to a sale or connected Appeals of Village Bh'arthal cApe. N. 791'2j,io & connected Appeals of Village Sijwasan A Apo No. ii 1/:wj() & connected Appeal, of Village PUChdnpi.ij acquisition in 1970 or 1980 incy have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood qf occurrence of varyihg periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard 0/increase,"

¶24'l'his Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development COrporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under: When different categories of lands (r lands with djfferent siluational advantages) are acquireçl for the same purpose, 501' /brtrming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes fell that determination of their value with "Ièrence to previous status or sithation should be avoided and a unlform rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notification,"

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired JaIld of Village Bharthal,, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upqn by the appellants is of Villa:e Pochaipur. i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious instAutio .ji, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from T52 lacs to 762 lacs per acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Fx PW 1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) which are basically between one set OC Co'-ownei's and Radha Swami Satsang Beas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 l3iswaS situated in Village Pochanpur refleët the coecl rriarke L, value of the land in thQ villages in question isthe moot question which is required to 1ho answered, EvideJyaforesaid sale exemjJars i.e., Sale I)eeds l./\.App No. 11 95/bog connected Appoals of Village l3harthal l.AApp, No. 254/2010 & COfln('cted Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App No. 1 /20]0 & connCc,cd App(!:ils of Village Pochanpur 'Q . . n (Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from Z,52 lacs to Z62 laos per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars - Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4 to ExPW1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale . exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing rFpresentative price for the acquired lands in question. The special neel of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Poharipur i Sale Deeds (Ex.PW--1 /4 to Ex.PW-1/.10) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purciiaser/vendee of the aforesaid sae exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay suöh a high p1-ice for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami .Sa.tsang, .Beas who had purchased more than 33 l3ighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale I)eed executed on 25111 March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.201 1 and in I.A. App. No. 999/201 0 titled as Raj Sing/i vs. Union of India, decided on.

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village Mamurpur was discarded while, holding that the same cannot be treated as represcntative price for the acquired. lands. .

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acqaisition, but it has come in e\'ldence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their • acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands weic not developed lnds. No prudent person having kn.o1edge of prevailing I.A.Ap. No. 1.195/2008 & sd Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App, No 294/2010 & connec Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connec Appeals of Village Pachanpur . ' I . .4 0'•. market price thf the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered oinion of this Court the sale exem1ar,. i.e., ISale L)eeds (Lx.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-.1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. .. . So far as the sale exemplar ofi.l1age Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-.1/i 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,172:1 per acre relating to Sale 1)eed of 27' January, 2000, it needs to he illioted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-l/l 1) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale I)eed (Ex.PW-l/1 1) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon includii.-ig tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had felched such a high price. in vie* thereof, this sale exemplar cannot he treated as a representative priie for the acquired lands in qu'estipn. . ' Left vith no sale exemplars disciosingrealistic price of simiLlarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to b6 considered as 1.o whether adoption of L& 1)0 circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-I)cterrnined Rates for the alterhate plots by the DI).A ought 1:0 be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question. ' •

¶30Parameters governing fixation f market value, of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reperted as P Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Lan( Acquisition Ojjicer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority IJyIerabad and Ors., 1995(2) SCC 305 are as unier:- •

¶12IJwever, in either o[the said cases whether it be the c/el ernq.incitjon of the inc.irketi.'a/i,ce ofihe accju/red icuid with building potentiality with ref erence to the price frtched by •.1lc C?tIl0iS in a well dve/oped layout in the neighborhood A.App. No. I Y3,/200N ionnecte1d Appeals of Vi!lage Bhairthal l.A.App. Nc, 294/20 .0 & connected Appeals of Village tijwasan A.App. Nc. 131/201.0 8 onneCte Appeals of Village Pochanpur the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent in.dioated ab•ve. Thus, the market a1ue of the acqiired l4nds of these three villages in questioii is determined 16,50,000/- per ,.bj-g.hq for the Category 'A' land and @ Z14,69,600/- per biha for the Category 'B' lands in ques ion. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compënsãtion awarded, sl.awtory benefits as per the Land Acquisitio Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, excet. for the period wher there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which pedod of delay no intcreson the enhanced compensation shall be pdid I hes ' el appellants would bo entitled to proportionate costs The ab\'e captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction: to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the conccrpd Reference Court. I)ecree sheets he axcordinok prepared.

(SUNILGAUR) January 06, 2 H 2 pkb I .! l.A.fpp No. 1195/2008 & connected ppeals of Village Bharthal l,A,App. No. 294/2010 & connected Apeak of Village Bijwasan il A,App. No. 111/2010 & connected Apeals of Village Pochanpur Poge 29 of 29 IN THE HliH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 119/20-0-8 RANBIR SI-LtRMA Appellant Throulii: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Arnit Man, lVIr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates •Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N. S .egi and Mr.H. S .Rautela, Advocate Mr. S .K.Róut, Mr.B .K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Torn ar, Advocate for Mr.R.S .Tornar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates ersus JDIA & ANR. Respondents Hi: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sthi, Ms. Arnita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal. Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. Appi. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6ih January,2012. Couns1 appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice iJIpp.1No. II'iD/LUU Page 1 H of the appication. Advance copy of this application has already been given to reil-laining counsel for the appellants. The typographical etror pointed out by the respondent in the th decision of 6January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgrnent the rate of compensation assessed is 'per higha', whereas it should be 'per acre': This is Iot disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of dAApp.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correcti ns e carded Out forthwith, in view of the aforesaid, this application stands.dispcsed of. (SUNILGAUR) JUDGE JANUARy1 pkb I, IL, ZUI2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 635/2010 RAMESH KUMAR Through: Reserved on. December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R 22) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR