Jagdev Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. '. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb JUDGE i: i"( t \ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DEIJ;][I A1' frtrw DELHI! Reserved on: November IS. 201 / Pronounced on: January 06, 20/2 :(GRJD-A) LA.APPJ 195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBJR SHARMA Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash,:Ms.Smita Maan, MriR.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Ananc^YadaV and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.RohTas, Advocate. Mr;Raghi.iVinder Qoclara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi add Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.ROiitand iV|r,B.K.R.outray,Mr.M.Azam Ansail Advocates,- Mr.Panka]Vivek,Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav.,Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Sai.TiitKhosla and Mr.rjhan.anjay Mchlawal, Advocates Mr.li.S.Rauiela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Adv'ocalfi Mr.Sandcep Thafclvjr.Ad\'ocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocale. - "Mr.N.vS.Negiand M'r.il.S.Ramela,(/Vdvocateslivr respondent in appeals filed by UOi) versus UNION OV INDIA & ANR. Appellant .Respondenis Through; Mr.SanjayPoddav,Si.^n/orAd\-ocatewith Mr.Saaiuv Pathak, M.r.lVlo.iutrao..-.adhtrvand Vis.Navlin Swain. Ms.K.Kaumiidi Kiran. Advocates for lAC/UOI Mr.Ajay V,ern?a,.Ms.Becnashaw Sor.(i. Mr.Mukcsh Kumar, Mr S.K,Setl]j,.Mr;Pavvan Ivlathur, Mr.Kunal Shanruu Advocaie Ici.- [)DA !.A.APP.4i2/2008 & CM.No,4096/2U08 (Cross-Objections). f.A.APP..<lo2/200B; LA.APP.4«/2v)08;LA.APP.588/&()()8/fe' C;\TNo.^<j90/20]0 (Cross-Objeclions); i.A.APP.697/2008& CM.No.4i3/200'^(Cross-Objcctions);I..A.Arp!7oi/2()(;S& CM'No.510/2009 (Cross-Ofcjectioa:;); L\.AP1>.768.'2008; I.A.APP.770/2008, Nc. riy;V^008 & coiinccled AppfiiilsofVilliiBf;BharLfiyl : •'••.Ar.i;). Ma. S. ronimct.sci Appc.-ul.so!'Villago Bi.iwason IA.App. .1.1 :i .•';)0.10 & connrac.d AppcaiiofViilaRC:l-ochanpiir Pagi! oi Z'l it < t % LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No:425/2()()9- (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & ' CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & " -CM.No.l795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA'.APP.S19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; • LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 8l CM.No.779/201 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.9]5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & •••CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; • LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572,/2009 •-(Cross-Objections);LA. APP.993/2008;LA. APP. 1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APIM032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; l..A.APP,1047/2008;LA.APP.104,8/2008& CN4.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420;2009 (Gross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No.l7262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM,.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.IOH'2008& CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections);,

1...A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections);' LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.6]9/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1093/2008; A..APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.] 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & Ci\4.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. [.A.APP.l 111/2008; l.,A.APP.l 112/2008 & CM..N0.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1113/2008 & CM..No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.11 L5/2008; .[.A.APP.l116/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008; lA.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.1129/2008 &. Clvi.No.550/2009(Cross-Objeciions); :A.APP.l!30/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Ol^iections): •LA.APP.1133/2008;LAAPP.1135/2008,.& Clvl/No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); lA.APP. 1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.]140/2008; LA.APP,1156/2008;Lx\.APP.l1^7/2008;L/V.APP:n58/2008& CM.No.7774.'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1159/2008; LA.APP/1161/2008; LA.APP.1166/2008; , LA.APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections):•LA.APP.1168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.1171/2008;LA.APP.1i72/2008; LA.APP.1173/2008'; LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; La,APP. 1179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008; 1,A.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.1183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); lA.APP.] 184/2008;. LA.APP.l 185/200S; 1.A.APP. 1186/2008& CM.No.7013./2009 I.A.App. Wo. n9.'j/?.008 & connnctfid AppeaLsof VillafjaBhnrthal I.A ApD. No. Z91/7.0.10 conni!ct(!dAppeal.?of VillageBijv/ass.n l.A.App.No. & connecLocIAppeal.sofVillagePochaiiDur' Page?,of29' % % %• % (Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA'.APP,1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.] 193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.y\PP,l 195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 •lA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No.6'935/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1200/2008 Ia.APP.1-202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008;- LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008 |a.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.12i3/2008;LA.APP.1223/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objectipns); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& (|'MNo.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008;LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/200.8 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39,/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.Noi746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cl-oss-Objactions) LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; ' LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA. APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objcctions); -LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.224./2009; (Cross-Obj ections); LA.APP.249/2009; I.;A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; I.A.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009;

1..A.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP.143/2009;' LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009;' LA.APP.210/2009 LA.APP. 13 8/2009 •LA.APP. 144/2009 t-A.APP. 190/2009 LA. APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.22p/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245,/2009; LA.APP.25;7/2009; LA.APP.43,7/2009; •• LA. APP.466/2009; LA.APP.49'0/2009; LA.APP.49'5/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13./2011; I.A.APP.295/2009; LA.AP?.447,''2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509./2009:' , LA.APP.513/2009; ' 'LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008. LA.APP.1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2OO8;LA.APP.23 L/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 T.A.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections'); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; LA.APP.45 8/2009; LA. APP.481/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.506./2009; .LA.APP. 510/2009: LA.APP.567/2009; .LA.APP.48/2010; LA.APP. 1176/2008; (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 datbd 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & y\ward No. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002',Village Bharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on:'December

¶082011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 .A.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BIJWASAN) Dl^VENDER KUMAR Through: ' ...... Appellant .Mr.R.S.TomaF,,Mr.Virendra Singh l.A.App. i\io .laOS/ZOOS& coiinectodAppealsofVillageRharliial lA.App. No, 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasnn l.Ai'App l\'o.J..Ll/Z010& connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpu.' versus UOl & ANR a Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38,41-46,49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) % i Respondents Through: ' Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Ml.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav;,and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for DOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K;Routray,Advocatesin appeals ; filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, '7] & 72 in appealfiled by UOI Mr,Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Ktinal Shanna.and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. % LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/20i 0 ].;A.APP.242/2010 LA.APP.246/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288./2010 LA.APP.295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 i.A.APP. 350/2010 , LA.APP. 35].'2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP.365/2010 LA.APP. 742/20l0. r.A.APP.360/2010 LA.APP.361/.^0 LA.APP.405/2010 LA.APP.^d/lOlO LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APPr43:8/2010 T.A.APP.723/2010 L^APP.72:4/2010 LA.APP.727/20\\k£^ma29m-m LA.APP.750/20IOXTa.APP.759/2^ LA.APP.964/2010 LA.APOgp72^ LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP.75/2010& C.M.No.964)2011 (Ci LA.APP.49/2010 LA.APP,51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP.^226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA..APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 L.A.APP, 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. 7?2/2010 A.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 f.A.APP, 732/2010 '1.A.APP.764/2010 .LA.APP.828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & ross-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo. FH0(30)96-L&-B/LA/I3417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasanjDelhi) ANID ' TA.App. Mo .11U5/-2008& conriRctncIAppealsofVillagnBharlnnl l-A.App. No. Jiijl/xOlO& conruiclodAppealsofVillageBijwasan i.A.App. No. n j/,?.O.ia& connecU'dAppealsofVillage Pochanpur .Page 4 of Z9 % (GRIDtC) Reserved on: December 18. 201J Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 .A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through; \ versus IJNTON OF INDIA & ANR Through: Appellants Mr.B.'D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand \ Mr.S.K,Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33,36 to 40, 44 to49, 59, 63 t.o71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No;61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocatewith Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,andMs.NavlinSwain,Advocates forUOI/LAC • , Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SoraerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA; % LA.APP LA'.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.A]>P. LA.APP: .l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 111/2010 . 160/2010 .228/2010 254/2010. 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 9] 9/2010 65/2011 120/2011 47'6/2011 523/2011 536/2011' LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 .248/2010 .266/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 105|2/2010 116/2011 12l'/201I - 485/2011 . 525/20J;] 554/2011 I.A.App.No. ll95/?.008&conncctedAppealsofVillageBharthalj •IA.APD. No. 294/2010&connectodAppealsofVillageBijwasan '' LA.App No 111/2010&conncclcciAppealsof VillagePochanpurl. •V LA.APP LA.APP aA.APl^ LA.APP: LA.APP. .'LA.APP. 'LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. • LA.APP. LA.APP-. . LA.APP. LA.APP. LA..APP. .[.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 ; 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010' 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. la.Xpp. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. !..a.a;pp. LA.APP. LA.APP. L.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/20 JO

41.2/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011

429./20n • 522/2011 535/2011 ' % % : 1/ (Relating to Notification !No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated • 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR" JUSTICE SUNIL G^AUR • I O R D E R % 0,6:01.23)12

¶1Since the.groundson which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch'of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentoflearned counsel for the parties present at the. healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/p417'dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-jr in Delhi, commenced with the. issuance of Notification of l.s"' December, 2000 under, Sectipn 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894,' peilaining to, vast tract of agricultural land in one compact bloc.k comprisingof thirteen Reven^ue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pdchanpur. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the "aforesaidthi'ee villagesstood acquiredby thelRespondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAwai'd .•No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation@?13.82 lacs per acre for IBlock 'A' (level field -- with itop soi.l) and @?12.32 lacs per acre lor Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissat)s.l:iedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheii'acquired l,A.App.No. ai;);i/2008&conncctedAppeals.ofVillage Bharthal.! ' . l^i.App.Nf). ZOd/MlOS conniicledAppealsofyillagcBijwasan ' l,A.App. No. n.l/zono&connfictfidAppealsofVillaRe Porhsnpur ' , • , -"agp 6 of Z9 % % > agrieulturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt vide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@ ?15.00 lacs per acre lor the • appellants'acquired land inlBlock 'A' and @?13.36 lacs per acrc for their 'Block 'B' land in yillages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed. ,5. In these appeals, farther enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees iMfty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon I " , the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, i Kamataka Housing Board w. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag ami 'Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Ann,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Kam and Ors vs.. State ofHaryana andAnr,,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangiinthaia

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors,, (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh • and Anr, ra, Unton of India. AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patii

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, . 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai w. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Kama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dpss v^. State of 'Haryana. &. Ors., 2010(9) SeALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab iS Ors., 201"! (9) SeALJ'i 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) }1 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SeC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer&• Anr vs. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 Si.^C 714; Thakarsibhaily.evjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, 'A.App. No. a connoctfidAppealsof VillageSharlhai ' . • ' •-A.App, Tjo. 7.94/;'.010&- connc!cU;dAppealsofVillage Bijwasan •A.App. No in/2010&connnctcdAppealsof VillagePocharjpur ' • PaBo7ofZ9 'i- % \ n Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2,001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175; Eisal Singh Ors, Fs, UnionofIndia& Anr., 200,6 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union of India..and Anr., (2009) ^15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValUyammaland Anr ra. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Ksran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh D'0tatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLr j61; W.P.(G) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh ra. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LMs and Ors UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKwndr vs. Umon ofIndia, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007"titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BkaleRam vs. UnionofIndia, 2010 (]70)DLT371.

¶6On the strengthof the.ialorcsaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situation,ofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be fn-st understood in order to; appreciate its potential which must be •adjudged keepingin view thc;dcvclop!Tientin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe liniitcdto the near lliturealone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel ibr appellantsthat Delhi-Rewan-Jodhpurbroad gage railway Ime of•Village Biijwasan •passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi ' u^,Aop. Nq, i: ;)r,/2003&connRctRdAppealsof Village Bhaiihal' • V IA,App.No. connccu-jAppealsof Villageliijwasan • '' iA.App.wo. 11:1/20.1.0&connectadAppealsof VillaRoPochanpu^ Paee 8 of ?.9 % \ and Oil Depots of Indian. Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan.and Samallcha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension •of IGI Airport in the year! 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. AttentionAvas drawnto the a/q sizras/m-dpto highlightthat the boundary ol-Village.Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous. ..

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has foiled to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was chpged from agriculturaF to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. andiinfactthe entire land ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in view o:fthe Notificationof24^' October,1994,

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been v./rongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rmna^ LA.App. No. l.i95/:'.008&connnctadAppealsofVillaBG Bharthal ! i !.A App.,No.29/1./M10& cdnncctcGAfpnalsofVillaBGBijwasani LA.App. No. 111/2010&conneclcdAppealsofVlllaBcPochanpur • r, ' ^ , . Pai'jG9 of 29 % \ : (V Reddi <& On, w. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass ra. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingmview the developmentin the area over aperiodof time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authorities!do not put the land to any use, it wouldnot mean thatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Shai'tna.learned counsel for the . appoUanlsupon the seven Sale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto higWiglit that (he sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exeinplarscannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone%the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludeithat these sale exemplarsarc overvalued becauseof any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AitjomMoluDessaivs. StateofG,m undAnr,(2010) 13 SCC 710.the averageofsaleexemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe market price of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since tlie sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the , ReferenceCourtuponthe minijiiumrates/circlerates fbr detenniningthe marketvalueoftheacquiredlandis patentlyerroneous. • .!!: Assessmentofmarketvalue of the.acquiredland was sought bv :. Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounsel|br the appellantson the basisofthe l'& OO rates fixed by the Government.'and'also on the basis of pre^ determinedrates fixedly thei Governmentfor'allotmentof alternate plots ,n the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand • poientialityofthe acquired land, determinationof its markcl value is ^ • •rPF connmedAppealsofVillagcPochanptir Page 10 o( 29 % > r b-sought -on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalldia or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarkaj Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Dctermined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

12.- In the writtensynopsis,jappellant-ImpulseIndia Private,Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the adknoyvledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

25.10.2002 being 'flmved In tl^ course of the proceedings Civil Writ petirion No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cros.s-examinationof appellant dated.

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfdr the facl that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rales of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land. AcquisitionAct, 1894 yvas issued. • c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the layv laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of .the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunt'halaversus Tahsildar.2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforea'icertaini.n2 the valueofthe land under.acqidsition. e) .Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the irigl Courtwhefeasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakirci Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer,.Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble.Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin • % IA.Afip. No. J13V2008&connectedAppnalsof Villageliharlhal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connp.ctndAppoals"ofVillageDljwasan IA.App. No. .1.11/2010&connecledAppealsofVillagePochanour % % case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has ,also 'held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different t)^pes of sales transactions ' shouM be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a. certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the maierial which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and '^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v.v. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the. impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007.' g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village^ Dhool Siras and Bharthal was • changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under thei urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and. Notifications of Government for land use change show-that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"' amendment' of the Constitution of India.' 'w.e.f. 1.6.1993 I.X A, by virtue of which the\ Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was • • deemeda municipalarea and the muni.cipalCounsellor _ was elected from, there.. No Panchay.at elections were held, in the area. • ; , h) Refused to apply the la.w laid down in AIR. Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of India and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin • the area has a direct ejfeci on the price that a willing purchaser woiddpay for the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. .2 had also Li\.App.No. 1195/2008&. connerilodAppnalsofVillageBharthal l-A.App.No. 29']/,'''.010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwa.san lAApp. No: 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur . , Page 17. of 29 V \i I auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped,land. j) The valuation of the]subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 ' for similarly situated-land. k) Does not take into dccount the possibilityof change of ihe use of the land althoughthe land M^as•acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase

¶11It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. - % I I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 , although they clearly establish the commercial - potentialityofthe said land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA)., (2010) 3see 661 it was heldthat thepurposefor which, land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property'acquiredthe fad whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialilyto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in nearfuture needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied bv the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acqtdredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portionofthe land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. J47/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be tre,ated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals. . f

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof LA.App. No. .1195/2008&tonrnictedAppealsof VillageBharthal I.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofyinagGBIjwasan ; . • l-A.App. No. :11/2010&conncctedAppealsof VillaBRPochanpur' " . ' • I % % urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin.question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Dattatmy Thirthkar vs. State .ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009'SC2238; KdpllMehra (Major Genera!)& Ors, Vs. Union of India 4 Ani\ 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is soughtin these appeals. ,

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounlselurgedthatthoughas per Section5hAof !xmd AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidence but the;same cannot be taken as relevant evidence ior determination of the market value unless and until the same is I properly connected with the land in question and element of special I fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely, nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value ofthe acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the • .ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpaf& Ors vs. Union of Inaia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; 'Lai Chand v,s'. Union ofIndia and Am\,

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. •Union of India, decidedon 216.09.20fl, it vv'as urged that sharp increase ill price in a shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for . such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App Nn.H95/2008& connected/Appealsof Village Bharthal ,•l-A.|\pp.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBiiwasan W.^/\prj.No. ;i11/,70j.0&connectedAppealsofVillaBGPochanpur ' l>'ip -14of29 \ i % % and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radhd,Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special:consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DctcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis Courtin SushiIKumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra). : i6. So fai as potentialityof the land is concerncd, it was urged by Mr.SaiijayPoddar, learned senior counsel for tlie Respondents/cross-objectorsthat tlie same has ^h'eadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minnnumindicativeprice ofithe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I-April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been' erroneously detennincd by the Reference Court, as in SusM Kumm- (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted , thatthereis no scopefor flirtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the Releience Courtwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe appreciation(S 12% per annum and the same desqrves to be broughtin line while granting . appreciation @ 10% per aijnum, and thereby allowing the cross- , actionsto the aforesaidextqnt. '

¶17After consideringthe ijival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,,vhatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling

1.A.APP.NO. lli^S&conncctcdAppealsOfVill^^^ ' •A/\pp. No. 294/^010&connectfidAppealsofVillageBljwa^an ' ;.App.,Jo. .l.a.V^010&connec:teclAppf,alsofVillagepochanpur; . ' • . • • ' Page15 of 2.9 ; 0/ seller and the best evidencei is the' comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho-Dass vs. State of Hmyana S. Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- ,"(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-visthe 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 ;

(ii) the suitabilityof'the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) possibilityof obtainingwater and electric supplyfor ) occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquired landfor buildingpurpose; •

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or '.developedresidential extensions in the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupierscjfbuildings,if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to • specify afew. "

¶18Ihe potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. I'Yn-the said puipose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind die purpose ibr IA.Aro. No; 1195/7.008& conneclGdAppealsofVillage Bharthal, " 17\.App.No connGctedAppealsofVillage Bljwa53n ' ' • LA.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Page IG of 29 % % which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent •.events to some extent. It has! been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination ofcompensationfor acquired:lands,it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Smgh (supra)that the.exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscould ijiot be a. groundto discardthem especially .. when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr ra. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC .714.The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behall of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialitvof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as : regards future prospects, thqre is no Justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well establishedproposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value,ofthe acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. 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 Courtin Kimn Tandon(3upra)can be referredto with advantage, -!. Apex CourtmValUyammal (Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acqun-ed land was situated-in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex^ Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai (Supra) deserveattention,whichare as tinder-- •" i-A.App. ^•o. il.S5/200S&connccVHdAppealsof VillageBharthal : ' 1A.APP.No. 2S4/J0)0&connoctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' l-A.App.Mo. connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur! Page 17 of 2.9 i I % \ n On the other hand, in 'urban or semi-urban 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 pockets in big cities, due to rapid development ^and high demand for land, the escalations-in prices 'have touched even 50% 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 for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases, in market value of lands in urban/semi-urhan areas and increases in m.arkei value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if ithe increase in market value in . urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum., the corresponding increases in rural areas woidd at best be onlyaroundhalfofit, \thal is about5% to 7.5%)per annum.. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the • nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase•in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase'to be applied would depend upon - the same. . Normally,recourse is\takento the mode of determiningthe market value byproviding appropriate escalation over the proved.marketvalue of nearby lands in previousyears (as . evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there • is no evidenceofany Qonteinporaneous'sale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The , said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale tiansactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour to-fiveyears. Beyond. that it may be unsafe,',even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only a few years, m.ay become unsafe and unreliable standard yvheie the gap is large-r. Tor.-exampie. for determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or I.A.App.11.95/200!?& connnclodAppealsofVillagRBh'iirtha! . LA.Apo. rjo. •'.'.M/2010& cor.nnctHdAppealsofVillageEijwasan LA.ApD No. in/2010& conneciGdAppesispfVillagePochanp.jr \ % \ "The legal position is \ihat even where there are several exemplars with referer^ce to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where hoM'ever there are several sales ofsimilar lands whosepjHces range in a narrow bandM'idth, • the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two 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 other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to.

¶22It would be worthwhile ito take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as . follows:- "Jt is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the . lands situated in the , neighborlaood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place betM'een a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could, be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreed betyveen reasonable prudent persons • '' acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value."

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

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:p "Primarily, the increase in Itindprices depends on four • factors - situationof the 'land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of la.nd. for developmentin the a.rea, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural .areas unless there is ah^> project of development in the . vicinity, increase in prices'would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutany suddenspurtsor jumps. IA.App. No. 31115/2008& connnctedAppealsofVillageBharUial; ' ' lA.App. No. 2.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillaRG Bljwa.rtin , lA.App.No. l].l/20iaa connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' Page18 of 29-i V acquisition in 1970or 1980 may have nianypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the "rate' of annual . increase may itself uridergo drastic change apart from the_ ' likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnationin prices or suddenspurts',inprices affectingthe verystandard of increase. " . ' • f

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictiu-nof the Apex Court in StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensatidn for the; acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.A\(hatwas said by-theApex CourtinHSIDC (Supra) is as under:- ~ "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different ^"^iht-ationaladvantages)\are acquiredfor tPie samepurpose, ^ for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with . reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification." V Undisputedly, in these, appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bha'rthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableandithe solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied . upon by the appellants is of iVillage Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinj^titution,le., Radha SwamiSatsang,Beas ptnt-hased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from f52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre. . -26. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-lMto Hx.PW-l/l0) which . are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, beas in respectofthe compactiblockof-Iandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the m.ootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, afpresaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds •lAApR. No. 119i)/2008&coniicctedAppsalsofVillageBharthal ' lAApp. No. ;;S<1/2010&conncictodAppealsof Village Bijwasan ' ' W.App.'No.1:11/2010&connactodAppealsofVillagG Pochanpur " ' % % (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetiiat its price varies from ^'52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was dependentupon the natureand situationof 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 exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativepijice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village;Mamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25"' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/20Q8titledas Jai 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 aforesaid decisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be t]-eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instantmatters,;thoughthe land use of the acquired lands • was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for tigriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands wei;e not developed lands. No pruderit person having knowledge of prevailing I.A.App. No. li95/2008&connoclcdAppealsof VillageBharthal : U.App. No. 294/2010&conncctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 1,11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePoclnanpur ' • Pngo '11 of 29 % % c / market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is me,ant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds i (Itx.PW-1/4 to lix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the ' Reference Court; ;

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) I relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it . needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8, and because vide Sale Deed (lix.PW-l/l 1) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high ]:jrice. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as•a reprc;sentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. I . •

29.' Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situatedlands in the vicinity,!now it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developed lands and Pre-DcterminedRates for the; alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors\ V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development . Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. IJowever, in eithei\of the said caies whether it be the determinationofthe marketvaiue ofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentiality referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a yvell developedlayoutin the neighborhood j IA.App. No. :l19:i/2008& connnrtod.AppnalsofVilluBeBharUial l.A.App. No. 294/;;'.01.0&connoctedAppnalsofVillageBijwasan' IA.App. No. 1.1.1/2010ft conneclGdAppealsofVillagePochanpiir 22 of 29 31, r or whetherit he the det'erininationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land with buildingpotentiality with reference to thepricefetchedby sale,ofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighjjorhood,it becomes inevitablefor the Couri to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetched,by the:sales ofplots in the layouts, •reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice . which theplots couldlaayefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further, where no'evidenceofpricefetched .by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be 'done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland Mntli reference to, the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the. actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by •a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in; that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfoim'4 out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such bvdldingpotentialityarises only-when there is no evidenceofsales of buildingplots -in the neighborhoodof the acquired land, indicatingthat there was no immediate dem.and, as such, for buildingplots even if form.ed in the acquired land. " \ • " I In view oi the dilficultiesin adoptionol rate of land cliarged by the DDA afteracquiringthe a^ricuJtura]lands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotmerlt. ratcs/Pre-Determined.Rates ii| determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) arid Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of .IA.App. No.,119l;/2008&cdnncclGdAppealsofVillageBhartlial L-A.App. No. 2!M/^01.0&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. mpma &connectedAppealsof VillagePoclianpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court .has rightlynot adoptedthe pDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquired,agriculturallandsinquestion.

¶32Now what is required!to be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBhdrthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was soiight to be. argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounsel for the respondeht/cross-objectorthat even if the i escalationat the compoundecirate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2600, i.e., for the period'interveningthe Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfoi developmentjofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.' ; *!

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method|in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland'only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyond that il; may •be unsafe, even if it relates!toa neighbouringland. What may be a reliable-standard,ifthe gap isiofonly ofa fexy years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instant.case, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dvy/arka Phase-IIis ot sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe . mode of determining the .hiarket value by providing appropriate .i7>,,App.No.119^/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. IMo, 234/2010&conncctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App, No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoclianpur Page 2^1 of 29 % % cscaJationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previousyears;

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddari, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has . granted•escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwaiTanted as a coordinatebench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil'Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account ofhigher potentiality of the acquired land over afid above the market value •dcteiminedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt • @ 12% per annum cannotbe reduced,.to10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed. \ , 35. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired , land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%o per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationofthe minimuiTiprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April, 2000 till the date of •Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not. ; 36, • Adoption of Govermtent'sminimum rates of agriculturalland -pertaining to the Notification in question;has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellanpbecause the acquired land had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true thatvide af(.:)r;esaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto IA.Anp. Wo. ]i9V2(jog&connectedAppe;ilsofVillageBhartlini lA.App. Mp. imp.QXO&. connccledAppealsofVillageBIjwasan lAApp. No. 31.1/20,10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpiir • t •• V \ \ I n presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being Ophsidered.as developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, cjven the. sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, heavilyreliedUpon hy the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.. j7. Rathei, it emerges fi'dm the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, [894, the acquired lands werp put to Agriculturaluse. Had there been demand,on accountofpotentialityofthe of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid thei^j-haiids on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscarmotrelf upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areliiiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex^pW-1/11)without'leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof , VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/1j) arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityofthe acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1|11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient •ground to grant higher compeiiscition.while relying upon the aforesaid sale mstances. Therefore, in vjcw of the afore-referreddictum of the , Apex Court in Haryana Stat^ IndimnaJ Devdopmern Corporation • (B'SIDQ(Supra),uniformrate:ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded •: "^der the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the governmentfor the agriculturalland in, ' Delhi, which generally,factor^ in the rise of price due to higher' potentiality, lakmg note of the^ feet that.there is agap between what ' 'f fP--'!"'-1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal " ,l...App No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Villai3eBijw3s;in : ' > i l.A,App.(Mo. U1/2010& connectedAopeaisof VillagePochanpur I • . • • increasein price due to liighei acquired lands upon change \ % % would be cxpected to be the market, growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalprice has been held to be reasonable basis for'assessingthe market value of the acquired lands inJai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushilKumar (Supva)and I find no reason to take a differentview than the one whichhad been taken by coordinate Bench of this Gouii. in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38Iliis Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village.Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Goyernment'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value ofthe acquiredlands in question, landingof the ReferenceCourtinmatterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectjofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof i:he IGT Airport,IndianOil and Bharat Peu-oleum Depots and of Railway linepassing through Village i Bharthal and there being a jlOO meters vide road starting from NH-8 Irom Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two porfions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity ot the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof aloresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof .DwarkaPhasc-I. What persuadesthis Courttolgrant 10% increaseover and above market value oi' the acquired lands! as assessed by the Reference Court on accountofthe higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the 1/.App. Ni). 1195/2008a connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l/\.App.No. 294/2010&connectcdAppealsofVillafiGBIjvv'asan lA.App. r-Jc;1.1.1/20.10&connectedAppeslf.of VlllaGOPochanpui-n'^yofza settled legal position aptly;highlighted by the Apext Court in Mlna NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that, there was the possihiliiyof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buddingsmthe immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion • wouM be sufficientto^ hold that the acquiredland had a building•potentiality and proceedto determine its market value takinginto account the increasein priceattributable • . tosuch buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very-difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,land in view of the fact that exactnesscan % never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesmo to treatthem ,with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices Ibr the agriculturallands for coinputingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at pai with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclined:to grant 10% increaseoverand above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin ^ these matters on account of tlie, aibresaid locational advamages ^ providingahigherbuildingpotenlialityin the acquiredlands in question. 4Q. Accordingly,these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand above the marketvalue assessedby the RefcrcnccCourt in matters pertaininglo Village Bharthaland Village Biiwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellants^ofVillagePochanpurat par with • •'h-ppellantsof VillageBharthaland-VillageBijwasaivtheappealsof 'A.App.No. 1.U/201Q&conncctedAppcaLsof Villagepochanpur• Fafje 23 of 29 % the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the\xtent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis dbtermined@?16,50,000/-per^b^J'fortiie Category'A' land and @ 4,69,600/-per b^forthe Catc^i^^r lands in question.

¶41On Ihe aforesaid enhancement in fte compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per tlie IjandAcquisitionAct, 1894 as i2xplainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodiwheretliereis adelay in filingthe appeal, for ^vhich periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshah be paid. Tlieseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶421he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof Jn the aforesaid terms with: direction to tlie Registry to remit tlie compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. i January 06, 2012 pkb -A/*PP-No. ,119^/2008&cqrinoctcdAppealsofVillafjoBharthal .Ypp.No. 2!>}/7.010&conpficledAppealsofVillagoBIjwasan lA^^pp. No. 1.11/7.Q10&coiiooclodAppealsofVillagePochanpur• JUDGE ) Pol On % % NTHE HIGH COURT ot DELHI AT.NEW DELHI H / 3^ + LA. APP, 1195/2008 RANBIE^ SI-IARMA ' Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tpmar, Advocate! Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.^Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) , Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tornar. Mr.B.p. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. , Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathalc,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and • Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI • Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.BanlceyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. . . I CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE StlNIL 'GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 • • ! C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). i This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 ' • ^ iJ % ft ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcoimseifor the appellants. • The typographicalerror pointedout by the respondentin the decision of 6 January, 2f)i2 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aloresaidjudgmentthe ratejofcompensationassessedis 'perbigha'. wheieas it should be 'perj acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counselappearingfor tire ai,pellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthitherefejrenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 119p2008 be read;as''peracre'. Necessary carrectionsbe oacriedoutforthwith. In \iew otthe aforesaijci,.thisapphcationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 plclr ^A.App.No".1195/2008 c,. •'(SUNIL GAUR) ^fr^3^ ^ ;-sier/<sa Page 2

( % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 759/2010 JAGDEV SINGH 8c ORS Through: versus UOI & ANR Through: Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR