Mange Ram v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

22.05.2012 CM No. 8748/2012 (u/S 151 CPC) Delay is of 669 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal. Notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively and state that the only opposition to this application is that for the period of delay, the appellant ought not be granted interest on the compensation amount in the event of succeeding in the appeal. The reason for the delay finds mention in paragraphs no. 3 & 5 of the application constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay in re-filing the accompanying appeal, therefore, this application is allowed while making it clear that for the period of LAAPPNo. 160/2012 Page 1 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. delay, appellant shall not be granted interest in the event of succeeding in the appeal. Withaforesaidobsei*vations,this applicationisdisposedof CMNo. 8745/2012(u/S 5 ofLimitationAct) Notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, acceptnoticeofthe applicationon behalfofrespondentsNo. 1&2 respectively. The reasonfor the delayfinds mentioninparagraphno. 2 ofthe instantapplication,which is found to be sufficientand hence, the delayoffive days' in filing the accompanyingappealis condoned. Application is disposedof CM No. 8747/2012 fu/S 5 of Limitation Act) Notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, acceptnoticeofthe applicationonbehalfofrespondentsNo. 1&2 respectively. This application for condoning the delay in filing the accompanyingapplicationbeing CM No. 8746/2012(u/0 22 R 3 r/w Sec. 151 CPC), is supportedwith the Death Certificateof the appellant, therefore, this appHcafion is allowed and delay is condoned. Application is disposed of CM No. 8746/2012 (u/O 22 R 3 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) Notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, LA.APPNo. 160/2012 Page 2 accept notice of tlie application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively. It is stated in the application that there are no other legal heirs of deceased appellant except the ones mentioned in paragraph no.l of the application, which is accompanied by affidavit of the legal heirs of the deceased appellant. This application is allowed and the legal heirs of deceased , appellant, as mentioned in paragraph no.l of the application, are taken on record. Application is disposed of LA.APP. 160/2012 The instant appeal relates to Village - Pochanpur, where vide Notificationof 13'^ December,2000, the land of the appellant stood acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned order of 15'*^ February, 2010, while upholding the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to the appellant, has denied any enhancement thereupon. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.l-UOI, states that the subject matter of this appeal stands covered by the decision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008 'Ranbir Sharma Vs. Union ofIndia & Am.' rendered on 6^^ January,2012, whereincompensationamount in respectof lands acquired in Village Pochanpur has been enhanced to ^16,50,000/- per acre for the Category 'A' lands and to ^14,69,600/- per acre in respect of Category 'B' lands. Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that the case of the LA.APPNo. 160/2012 v Page 3 appellant is at par with Ranbir Sharma (Supra). In the light of above, this appeal is allowed in terms of decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra), with statutory benefits and proportionate costs, while declining interest for the period of delay. This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. GAUR) MAY 22, 2012 rs JUDGE LA.APPNo. 160/2012 Page 4 % IN THE HIGH'COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Blese Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BPIARTHAL) RANBIR SHARA4A Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maar versus ilNlQ-N OF INDIA & ANR. •ved on: November 18, 2011 .. Appellant , Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.vSmita Maan, Mi.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghiivinderGodara,Advocate Mr.M.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Raijtela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiiitray,Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh 'Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and M-.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, Advocate Mr.Atul Iripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.&aiitela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdyocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav end Ms.Navlin SAvain, Ms.K.Kaunuidi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AJay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pav Sharma. Advocate for DDA an Mathur, Mr.Kunal [.A.APP.412/2.008& CM.No.4096/2008 (Cn^ss-Objections);LA.APP,452/2008; 590/2010 (Cross-O'biections); :tions); LA.APP.701/2008 & 8/2008; LA.APP.7'70/2008; La.APP.453/2008; LA.APP.688/2008 & CM.No.5 l-A.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Obie CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objectionsj; LA.APP.VC iA.A|)|3.No. liy5/2008 & connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I^.App. No. 294/ZOlO& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwaian !A.App. No. i:tl/?.010& connectedAppealsofVillaRePochanpur Page 1 oi 29 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections)'LA.APP772/9008 rMNo^6n/9nT (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& •<^Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Obiectionsv' CM No efsSVr LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008& CM.No^615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No931/2009 LA.APP.806/f008;LA,APP.813/2008& CM.NoJ795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/Jo08 & CMNo80S/2009 LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008-LA,APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP832/2008' LA APP 8^3/9nos' I^.APR844/2008^;LA.APP.845/2008;'LA.APP.8:73/2008i CMNo779^ .''"fo? LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008;LA.APP.915/2008;LA.APM?Sr& CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP959/2008-LA.APP.974/2008& CM.No.5I9./2009(cJs-oXnsV ' LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & Cross-Objectio"s);LA.APP.993/2008;LA. APP.1029/2008& CM No 17340/2008 VCross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CMNo ^7385/2008rPm.. ni; f a LA.APP.1032/2008&CM.No.599/2009(Cross-OhX^r/rAPP1^^ LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM Nn /S "46/2008, LA.APP.1049/2008&CM.No.420/20.^9(C^s^c^on^ LA.APP.1051/2008&CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-oijdS)-LAAPP o'?POO.-' rc" LAlTpaosSs"'cm'n^^^^^^^^ .j\j.iNo.jhjy/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.}109/'9008-1A APt> Inn/'-^dns •• • N^ 3ir009fcr"°0?-''n 1/2008;L^.A^'lllS^2 ni, ^ (Cross-Objectiom);LA.APP.1113/2008& CM.No3826/2009 fpf LA..«'P.1115/2008;LA.APP.11=16/2008;LA.APP.1m^oS- .•.APP.l 12t)/2008; LA.APP.1129/2008& CMNo550'^009 ObiZfr LA.APP.1137/2008..CMJ.".17283/.008(C;;;^^^^^^ ..APP.l157/2008,LA.APP.1158/2008& C]\LNo7774/^009 APP 1 Ko/onr^o. ta * r,T^ _ .'/ .t, LA.APP.1156/2008-LA oi • V' r LA.Arr.i ii>«/2008 & C]\LNo 7774/^009 (Cioss-Objections);LA.APP.1159/2008;LA.APP.lk51/2008'LA/•P^^ 1lfi,'/9nnp T^t'tnpCM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Obi4ctiiDns)'lA \PP H68/2008• LA.APP.1170,/2008;LA.APP.1171/2008;LA.APP.11^00:LaIpp S : LA.APP.1175/2008;LA.APP.1178/2008;LA.APP.1L/^/JoOs'lIaPP 8 900 ^ LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.1183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009('Cro'^s-Ohipri^ -• LA.APP.1184/2008;LA.APP.1185/2008;LA.APP^l186/2008&CM.No.70]3S I iA,./w No. Tiys/MosaconnectedAppeal,,ofVillageBharthal ' ' i i.A.A.c.p.Mo. ?.y4/20:l0?.corinoctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i !.A.App.No. :n.i/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ; I Page 2 of 29, A.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.975/2008; CM.No;572/2009 CAlNo.17340/2008' % (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1190/2008;LA.APP n91/2008-LAAPPricnmo LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA APP 12] CMNo''6S9rctt1.r-'i"''r^; ?cm;LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA APP 1241/2008^ LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA APP 3 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Obi LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Obi T^ LA.APP.95/2009 & CM No 95., LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LAAPP12lSo9-LA.APP.I36/2009; LA.APP.137/2009 LA APP 3S-' LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009! LA.APPlXo'-' .tiSiSSKsils S"pp°2r,S (c^°oS ik: HS LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009-la. APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009-LA.APP,459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009-LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009' LA.APP,494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA,APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.A.PP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; tions); LA.APP.1200/2008; 0/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008; !/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& /2009; LA.APP.39/2009 ections); LA.APP.59/2009 ections); LA.APP.74/2009 '3/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No. 7027/2009 LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP,447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.1,45/2010; LA.APP.111^/2008; LA. APP.3 05/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.A.PP.48 1/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.5 10/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 LA.APP.1177/2008;LA.APP.l201/2008;LAAPR^^IS (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30V96/L&B/I A/ Land Acquisition A. 26,.^002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,De (GRJD-B) 13417 dated 13.12.2000 t, 1894 & Award No. hi) Re^rved on: Deceinher 08. 2011 Prgnounded on: .Tamjgrv06. 20/2 LA.APP.294/'2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) {:)EVENDERICU]\^R Appellant ihrough: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh i^^.Api) No. .11.93/2008St connectedAppealsof VillageBhartlial IA.App. |\Ja. 294/2010&ccnnectcdAppealsofVillageBijwasan lAApp. No. r:.l/2010St connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Advocates' Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routra>, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR Through: LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 Respondents ]S4r.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay KtiniEr Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.l^Iavlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals filed by UOI.;; Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appealfiledby UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma., Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mi-.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. i LA.AP'P. 49/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 59/2010 LA AFP. LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 362/2010 ' LA.APP. LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 7B1/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 9^/2010 & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 22672010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 28/2002-2003; Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND I IA.npp, No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 29,t/?,01C & connected Appeals of Village DIjwasan . lA.App. No.'.111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePoclianDur dated

13.12.2000 Act, 1894 & Award No. Piige 4 of 29 % (GRID-C) Reservedon: DecemhP.r IR^ ?ni} Pronoh need on: January 06. 7017 LA.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Mr.B.D.Sharina, versus UNIONOF INDIA & ANR Through: Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma and Mr.So fbrDDA. . 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011" 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 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 : 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 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. l.A.App.No. 1]95/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 2.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan I.A.App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealscfVillagePochanpur la!app LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APt. LA.APif. LA.APP. LA.APP.. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.APP;. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP: Appellants . Mr.S.K.Solanld and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor 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,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.6i, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav Advocatefor appellant inR-22) Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKuiparPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NplinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Sharma, Mr.Kunal mer K.Seth; Advocates 55/2010 09/2010 2^19/2010 2^1/2010 35/2010 2,/2010 3^7/2010 .4:^3/2010 .577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 7^4/2010 61/2011 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 156/2010 . 215/2010 •250/2010 270/2010' 306/2.010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010

918./2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535,9.011 Page 5 of 2.0 % (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-1

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land A Award No. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,Yill^: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012

¶1Since-the grounds on which enhancement sought by the appellants in these bunch of thereforewith the consentof learnedcounselfor the partiespresentat the healing of these appeals, these bunch.of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417datf 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bherthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this Gomnfbnorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopm II' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance c & B/LA/134.17 dated cquisition Act, 1894 & •ge Pochanpur, Delhi) of the compensation is appeals are identical, :nt of 'Dwarka Phase-f Notification of 13^" December, 2000 under Section4 of the Larid AcquisiionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land i comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includin I.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. -5. Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide 1 one compact block villages in question. in the aforesaid three :hree separateAwards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003: Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward NO.30/2002--2003granting compensation@ '• Block 'A' (level field - with top soil),and :@;?12.32lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil). j I

¶4Dissatisfiedwiththe assessmentofmarketValue oftheir acquired i l-A.App. K!o. 1195/2008S. connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ! lA.App. No. 294/7.010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' , p g .82 lacs j^er acre for agricultural lands, appellants had sought refere the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Referen judgment had enhanced compensation@ ?15. appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' and/"@ "A their Block 'B' land in Villages Bhartha;l i referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave be

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of the appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijw?^,sanis at the rate ofRupees Fiftylacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought ice under Section 18 of ce Court vide impugned 00 lacs per acre for the ?13.36 lacs per acre for ind Bijwasan; whereas, en dismissed, compensation sought by compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs the precedents in the shape of decisions i Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisiti Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. Sta 3er acre by relying upon 1 Executive Engineer, on Officer, Gadag and . State of Goa and Anr., 'e ofHaryana and Am.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunihala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 andAnr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Pati!

(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai lal vs. Union of "India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; see 661; Ranvir Singh Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs Vs. i 2002 (65) DR.T 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State Inion ofIndia <& Anr., of Hary ana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab S. Ors., 2011 (9) SCAI^E 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. St(Be rf Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through'LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana &. Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Ckam Sabha & Ors, Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M No. 4143/2003-titled as decided on 26.03.2010; IC Rafiq Saheb, (2011) / see 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, IA.Ape No.:119.S/2008& connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 7.9'1/2010&. connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. in/201.0& connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur Pane 7 of 29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424;,:'^ Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175: Union ofIndia & Am., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; Get'.eral Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbh Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and A iryana State Industrial Risal Singh iS Ors. Vs. ai Jivanbhai Patel and nr Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) ami Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) Dattatray Thirthkar ra. State of Maharashtn Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. U 176(2011)DLT 361; AV.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh ra. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Am., decided on 24.04.2008; Prakash (dead)by LRs and Ors vs. Unionofint Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, {1991) 1 No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on /..6.09.2011,LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram ys'. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia,2010 '

(170) DLT371.

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

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat I Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway lini of Village Biijwasan SCC 745; Mahesh a, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Mon of India &. Anr, dia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; 1 SCC 423; LA. APP. passes through the land of Village Bharthal,' di^ i.e., on the eastern side ofthe railwayline is the /iding it into two parts, IGI Airport, Nev/ Delhi i.A./'.pp.N;3. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal i.A.App. No. .7a4/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan iA.App, No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Mu City Part-I and Part-II again divides the ag portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFami;Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Saina out by Mr.S.K.Solanldlearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first a(;quiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and ag^in establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafter''in Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmqnl the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phas(;-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks ^zzra^/mapto'highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan appellants that the Reference Court has fa: potentialityof the acquired land in the light illegally treated the acquired land to be a rti towards Dwarka Sub-icultural land into two in the year 1980 for the year 1982 for Bharat Village Pochanpur were of Dwarka Phase-I and learned counsel for the led to appreciate the Df its location and has .gricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"" October, 2000 vide whicli land use of tlie tliree villages in question was changed ixom, agri • I commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireIknd ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24^'' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid t\vo wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by mltural to residential/ lA.App. No. 1135/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App.No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.'\.App.fgo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur "^lotifications have been •elying upon P. Rama Pago 9 of 29 Reddi& Ors. V5. LandAcquisitionOfficer,HyderabadS: Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana % Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the.developmentin the area ove* a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,if the authoritiesdo not put the landto any use, it wouldnot mean that there is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Rehance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from. ?5: merely because of the said variation, these sale 2 lacs to ?62 lacs and exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the .Refjrence Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exeinplars are overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per'sealed legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu D andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageof s,^He taken as representingthe marketprice of the lane which comes to ^57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsreliedLpon by the appellants I are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates for detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. i

¶11Assessmentofmarket value ofthe acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantso:i the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the bcation,situationand potentiality of the acquired land, determination o l7\.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 'ssai V5. State of Goa sxemplars ought to be f its market value is sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis ofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on DeterminedRates (PDRs)asreferredto abov6.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited ofLA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds;- ' a) "ignores the achiowledgementon pe part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the proceedings Civil Writ petition Mo. (Referred to in cross-examinationiof

7.7.2007) . ' b) Does not accountfor the fact that . dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe the areafor more than 15 years before under Section 5 of the LandAcquisftio issued. the basis of the Pre-course of the 19012 of 2006. appellant dated the Public Notice rates of land in the Notification n Act, 1894 was •e c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincluding,in one ofthe more recent decisions oj the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per esiablishedlaw has to be consideredbejoreascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court wherea establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeliCo: case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No'.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be^ disregardedin I I LA.App. No. 1.195/2008&conncctedAppealsof VillageIJharthal i-A.Aop.No. 294/2010&connccledAppealsofVillage Bijwasan i/.-App.No. ,111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur as per the laM' irt in the recent Special Land case the average sale price is loyv$r. Molu Dessai v^. State of Goa, 20J0 Supreme Court has also held that exemplars and not by averagingof sales transactions should be adjudicatingupon compensationupon Further in Anjana 'IS) see 710, the 'he highest of the different types of qonsidered while a certan land.,

3.2008 in LAC f) Relied upon judgment dated

¶3No.-g?A/20.06to decide the market value ofthe subject landwhile igiwringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis much higherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockA and X13,36,000in BlockB in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'bl including in Subh Ram vs. State of ^ see 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding 6n the issue No 1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changedand these areas ceasedto bS agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariksof Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications:oj Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, comm.ercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinent to appellantleadevidencein respectofth of the Constitutionof India, w.ef^ 1. virtue of which the Municipal C&rporation Act was amendedand the area where the land is situated, M'as deemeda municipalarea and the mun was electedfrom, there. No Panchayc held in the area. e Supreme Court Har)?ana 2010(1) mention that the '• 74 ' amendment 61993 IX A, by •cipal Counsellor '•t elections were h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developm.entin the area has a direct effect on the price that a •willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fad that Respondent No. 2 had also l7\.App.No. 1195/2008&connectfidAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App.No. 294/2.010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. Ul/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur J auctionedsimilarlysituated land as . at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and c saidlandis "whollyunderdevelopedIan ommercial blocks onchided that the d. j) The valuationofthe subjectland is. even lowerthan the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2 for simdarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthe ppssib the use ofthe landalthoughthe land development purposes of Dwarka reiteratedthat the land use of Village Bharthal was changed and these 'are agriculturaland came now under the ofDelhi State. lit}? of change of was acquired for Phase II. It is Dhool Siras and as ceased to be urban boundaries I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24 101994 although they clearly establish the commercial ^LATaOimtsc'ril^^^ Tahsildar whtl I J " purposefor Mhch land ,s acquired is a relevailtfactor. While value of the propertya\Ld the fact •for tuiMn! used jor buildingpurposes in immediate,or " needs to be considered. 'ands occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house s' auartpr^^^A^^^ putting up resiaentiat quartejs As aportionofthe landis beingconsideredas beingput in. betteruse as housesitesin tht

¶13Ill the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and othJrs of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factualdetailshave been provided*ithaprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals J4. Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsaaVancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof Ua'"' m" ^ VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan '-A App. No. lH/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePcchanpur in near future ' near future. co-appellants of the urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin que land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarra. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMe Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia &'Anr, 176(2011)JLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, Resei-vedAuction Rates of detemiinethe market value of the acquired':lands and infaot the sale instancesrelieduponby the appellantsai-e comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to asiiess the con-ect marlcet value of the acquired lands. Thus, enliaticeinentof compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby theRespondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof 3tion, i.e., the change in Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certifiedcopy o admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence for determinationof the market value unless and until tlie same is properly comiectedwith the land-in question and element of special fancy of tlie purchaserand otherfactorsnamely, property,proximityto the villageetc. are also req f the Sale Deed is an lature, situation of the uired to be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have beeri;'illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DR.1 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. •.Unio t ofIndia andAm.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titlefl Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urg \n price in a shortperiodcannotbe taken to be rea SLich sharp uicrease are explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-/\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan W.App. No. 1.1.1/2010&connectedAppeal.';ofVillagePochanpiir as Sushil Kumar vs. ;d that sharp increase istic until reasons for .1^3ge 14 of 29 and the purchaser as no prudent person having loiowiedge of the usual prevalenttrend in the marketwouldpay such a higherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thu behalf of the cross-objector that adoption Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBench ofthis Court in SushilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is con Mr.Sanja^^ Poddar, learned senior counsel Ibr objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen fac'tor(jdinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1'' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired larids determined by the Reference Court, as in appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrmn the priceofacquired s, it was contended on of L& DO rates/Pre view of the decision of ;erned, it was urged by the Respondents/cross-lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollate judgment deserves to be modified deleting tfc ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto consideration per annum and the same deservesto be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival subixiissidns lias been erroneously Sushil Kum.€ir (supra) r and so, the impugned e enhancement by the ;h.e appreciation@ 12% advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugned|u(igmem,the evidenceon recordand the*decisionscited,what emergesh th oFthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willin LA.App. No, 119S/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal U.Aop. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IJV.App. No, .111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur at the true market value purchaser to a v/illing Page 15 of 29. ii seller and the best evidence is the comparabL \ dealing with the questionofpotentialvalue o has to be considered in assessing the marl reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dms Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords e sale instances. While f the acquired land, what at value thereof, stands State of Haryana is-a-vis the city or n growing in size rial, educational, rtance or because

(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandv the town or village which had i?ee because of its commercial, imiusi religiousor any otherlandofimpo ofits explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquired'land buildings, be they residentikl, industrial,as the casemay be; forputting up the commercial or

(lii) possibilityofobtainingwater and• occupantsofbuildingsto beput upelectricsupplyfor on that land; the likefor using

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the acquittedlandfor buildingpurpose;

(V)

(vi) existence-of highways, public rc buildingplots or developedresiden the vicinityorcloseproximityofthe ads, layouts of ial extensions in acqvdred land; •v. benefits or advantages of educatio health care centres, or the like in areas of the acquired land whic availableto the occupiersofbuildin acquired land; and mal institutions, the surrounding-h may become 'gs, if built on the

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland Itself being in demandfor buildi)ig purposes, to specify a few. "

¶18Thepotentialityofland for thepurpose(ifdevelopmentas alsofor buildingpuiposesdependsupon a largenumbercffactors.For tlie said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purposefor lV\.App.Mo. ll9.'3/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. ;.94/;M10&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ! LA.App Nu. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpLir which the lands were sought lo be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash(supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevant ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been 'actors for detemiination held by the Apex C.ourt in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsmall pieces ofland relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be a groundto when exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwere not

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the LandAcquisitionOfficer<&. Am vs. M.K Rafi

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom t on behalfof the appellantsis that where there either in location, situation or potentialityof similarlysituatedhaving similar advantage ava regards future prospects, there is no justificj compensationon the groundof distancebetween and the acquired land. '

¶20It is a. well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of piovingthe true market value of the acquiredlaid is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally tme that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be refer

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),while that the acquired land was situated in close /icinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., l^ad heldthat deduction of 40% towards development charges was im .observationsmade by the Apex Court in Anpmi deserve attention, which are as under lA.App |\io, 3195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal IA.App, No. 294/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. .1.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur discardthem especially available. Apex Court in Special qSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC he decisionsreliedupon is no basic difference :he villages, which are liable to them even as Ltion for reducing the similarly situated lands •ed to with advantage, taking note of the fact Droper. The pertinent Molu Dessai (Supra) "The legal position is thai even where exemplars Mnth reference to similar highest of the exemplars, which is a bona will he considered. Where however there ofsimilar lands M>hoseprices range in a r the average thereof can be taken, as market price. But where the values disci t\vo sales are markedly different, it 'gay inference that they are with reference to c that the lower value sale is on account or other price depressing reasons. Conseq cannot he resorted to. " there are several nds, usually the fide transaction, are several sales arrow bandwidth, representing the jsed in respect of only lead to an Hssimilar lands or of under-valuation uently averaging la

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching obsen^ations pertaining to detemiination of fair market, rate by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil follows "Jt is well settled that genuine dnd transactions in respect of the land under Df acquired lands made (Supra), which are as

¶23bona fide sale acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactionsproximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility takenplace between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. " Principlesto detemiinethe market value of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Naiurcl Gas CorporationLid.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land pricesidepends on four factors - situation of the land, natxire of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityofland/cjr developmentin the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinit).', increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, Mnthoutany suddenspurts orjumps. IA,A|jp. Wo. J19S/2008 & connected AppeaLs of Village Bliarthal LA.App. Mo. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan LA.App. Mo. IJ1/2010 8i connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur % On the other hand, in urban or semi-urbayi 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 q j^uch higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extrem.e, in remote rural areas where there, was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers,[the prices stagnated foryearsor rosemarginallyatanominal^rateofF/o or 2%) per .annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in areas and increases in market value of areas. Therefore if the increase in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% tc 15%) per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only aroundhalfof it, that is about5% tc 7.5%oper annum. This rule of thumb refers to the gen&ral trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of evidence relating to increase in prices. special reasons for applying a higher rc any specific evidence relating to the a prices, then the increaseto be appliedw the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mo^le ( marketvalue by providingappropriatee. provedmarketvalue ofnearby lands 'in/ evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisi is no evidence ofany contemporaneoussa acquisitions ofcomparable lands in thk ne said method is reasonablysafe where , transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the. s\ ^ by onlyafew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears'Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring urban/semi-urban lands in the rural market value in clear and specific Where there are te of increase, or ctual increase in ould depend upon. f determining the •calation over the previous years (as lion), where there le transactions or ighbourhood. The 'he relied-on-sale ibject acquisition land. What may be a reliablestandardif few years, may become unsafe and un where the gap is larger. For example]fo market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or the gap is only a •reliable standard r determining the i.A.App. No, 1135/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App. No, 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan lA.App, No. 111/2010Si connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur % acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drasticchange apartfrom, the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease."

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation:(MSIDC) (Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods.What was saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "W^endifferentcategoriesoflands (or lards with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfdr. thesamepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe samenotifiiati: '' in. 25, Undjsputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Byw questionare not availableand the solitarysale ey, upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpu]', i.e., the seven Sale Deedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village whichvariedfrom ^52 lacs to ^62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds(Ex.PW-l/4io Ex.PW^-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand ^adhaSwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasaring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassitua.tedin VillagePochanpurreflectthg correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the mootq,uestionwhich is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds W.App. No 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur asan of the period in emplar strongly relied PochEinpur at a price t;. I (Bx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetiiat it& 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-the same marketprice.It was dependentupon th the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish ihe each parcel of land of these sale exemplk-s 1/10) did not command e nature and situation of advantages attached to with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesaleexemplarscannotbe ti-eatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired special need of the purchaser of these agricu Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex. brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the pm'chaser/vendeeof the aforesaidsale exemplai-sbeen got examined;then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pa^ such ahigh price for these lands. ITie special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas'whohad purchasedmore tharr 32 exoibitant price in VillageMamui-purvide skle March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on ;2l;8.201] and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. UniL ^ India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sal Mainuipm-was discardedwhileholdingthatthe same camiotbe treatL as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. '•

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,biif it that the acquiredlandswere beingused for agricul acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the ,acc developed lands. No prudent person having Ibio •A.App. Mo. T195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal •AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur lands in question. The Itural lands in Village .?W-1/10) has not been .Bighas of land a,t an Deed executed on 25"' No. 266/2008 titled as 3 exemplar of Village of the acquired lands has come in evidence ;ural purpose till their uired lands were not wledge of prevailing ir. market price of the land in questionwould pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-l/lO) have been i'ightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village S relied upon by the appellants is concemed, disclc ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relating to Sale Deed c needs to be noted that because this sale exem-situated on the National Highway - 8 and be amallcha (Ex.PW-1/11) sing exorbitant price of f 27"^ January,2000, it plar (Ex.PW-]/]l) was cause vide Sale Deed (Bx.PW-1/11)vendorhadsoldnot only the laridbutthe structurethereon includingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,lane, by-lane, etc., therefore. it had fetched such a high price. In view tViereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice .for question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosing.realisticprice ofsimilarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whetheradoptionofL& DO circularrates for the developedlands and the acquired lands in Pre-DeteraiinedRates for the alternateplots'by I adopted to determinethe true market value of the acquired lands in question. i

¶30Parametersgoverningfixationofmarketvalue of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Oi's. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in eitherof the said cases ivhetherit be the the DDA ought to be determinationofthe marketvalueofthe ac buildingpotentialit)^with referenceto the quired land with vrice fetched by sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutmtl^e neighborhood LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan l-A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur # m

¶31or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe t, uy f acquiredland with buildingpotentiality thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplots layout ofbuildingplots in the neighbor inevitablefor the Court to find out what with reference to n an undeveloped hood, it becomes will be the price uuL wnuL WILL oe me price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts relied unnnh^} /• , reliedupon by any oftheparties,with refe which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldun .ne uaie or me publicationof the preliminarynotific^ionunder Section () of the Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetched by the sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof^the^ acquired lands be\omes available, rence to the price on the date of the then what couldbe done is tofind out the the acquiredland with reference to the market value of relevant date of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto dCTlJ/^I

77.^/^ //^ -i4-j e the actualuse to which it wasput and incn a small percentage having regard to th buildingpotentialityascertainedon the bas. he made available in that regard. A si increase to be given shall not exceed l/5tn oj me market vaue of the landfound out according td, its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving inc)easedvalue for such hujlcbngpotentialityarises only when there is'no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there'wlsno immediate for buildingplots e.&n fjormedIn the In view of tlie difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land chargedby ease its value by e degree of its is of evidence to nail percentage h of the market the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,dev transferringperpetualleaseholdrights, the AjIjx (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisabletdi re rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following Chand(Supra),a coordinateBench ofthis Court and SushU Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua fte developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueof elopingthe same, and Court i,n Lai Chand y upon the allotment market value of the the dictum of Lai in Jai Singh (Supra) lAApp. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ".APP, 29W010Sc.""Mcd»pp3,|.o,VNI. "bS",: - -App. No. 111/2010&connected/AppealsofVillagePochanpur the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find t has rightly not adoptedthe DDA rates for allotm lat the Reference Court ent of developed land or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsir. question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease methodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessing land in questionwhiletakinginto consideration the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland.othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-the market value of the ;he earlier acquisition of by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, )bjector that even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% prsr aonum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the Notification for development of Dwarka Ph period intervening the ase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-ILstillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than tliie and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. foresaidescalatedprice

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of ^ the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautipniig the Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew yet and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDv^'arljaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal • LA.App. No. 294/2010& connpxtedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur md beyond that it may land. What may be a rs, may become unsafe [n the instant case, ,the providing appropriate m escalationoverthe marketvahieofthe nearbylandofthe previous3^ears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation 12% per annum, Wihich is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Smhil Kum escalation @ 10% per annum. After having SushilKumar (Supra), I fmd that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been-'grmtedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of ar (Supra), has granted Derused the decision in the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe responden';are dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adc minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, IS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marb^t value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% pdr annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deservesto not. •

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum ra pertaining to the Notificationin question |ias learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe. aCqu be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificatior declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban.It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthatby itselfis not sufficientto l-A.App, No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal U.App. Mo, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan 17\.App.Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur iption of Government's by the Reference Court be further increased or :es of agricultural land been assailed by the red land had ceased to of 24"^ October, 1994 c presume that the acquired lands had gainec. potentiahty for being consideredas developedlands. The evidence?led is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin anil a-oundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exeraplarsof Radha Swami Satsang,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appell ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.:

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence nts disclose that the sale on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultu increasein pricedue to higherdemand,on accolintofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid their hands on other s in question.But, indeedappellantscannot.relyu :al use. Had there been ale instances in the area pon the sale of the land in VillagePochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur''an VillageSamallcha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparayle and so the contiguityof the acquired land wi .Village Samallcha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be ti-eated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevzlopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensation(Reservesto be awarded i the sale exemplar of with the acquired lands h the sale instance of .# for the lands acquired under the same Notificat minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor tl Delhi, which -generally factors in the rise of on in the light of the le agricultural land in price due to higher potentiality.Taking note ofthe fact that there is a gap between what IA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur /"•'i would be expectedto be the market growth actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagricu to be reasonable basis for assessingthe mark lands in JaiSingh(Supra)as well as in Suskil^i no reason to take a different view than the one coordinate Bench of this Court in the afores and what the market had tural price has been held •t value of the acquired 'umar (Supra) and I find vhich had been taken by aid cases of Jai Singh the Reference Court in (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view tha' the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal^anii Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe:^accuiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtinmatterofVilk Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and BharatPetroleumDepots a,nd of Railway line fassing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide,road starting from Nli-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there bein vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowmisj ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof th; afoiesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredland ge BharthalandVillage Farm Houses in the led the attention of the s Court, on account of s in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-L Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by'th(: Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal lv\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lV\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur / settled legal position aptly highlightedby the Apext Court in Namherwan Khan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:

¶39"When once a conclusion is reache&that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland bein^'\uszdfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture would be sufficientto hold that the acq\ buildingpotentialityand proceed to dete "" value takinginto accountthe increasetinprice attributable to such buildingpotentiality. " ' Consideringthe fact that it would be yer^^ difficultto provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the never be achieved in the matters of assessing: broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichper with equivalenceby uniformly applying the G prices for the agriculturallands for computingt such conclusion lired land had a rmine its market fact that exactness can Bir compensation, it is suades me to treat them overnment's minimum le fair market value of the acquiredlands as there are no special featurjs to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsofVillageP par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% iricre maiketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdetermined'by these matters on account of the aforesaid Dchanpur are treated at Village Bharthal and the decision in Sushil ase over and above the the Reference Court in locational advantages piovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marke Reference Court in matters pertainingto Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillage the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBi W.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal " LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A,App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur to the extent of value assessed by the Bharthal and Village Pochanpur at par with jwasan, the appeals of the appellants of Village Pochanpur are alsc indicated above. Thus, the market value of the i three villagesin.questionis determined@?16,f Category 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per 1^ lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionA the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOl 2 granted, except for the period where there is a d allowed to the extent acquired lands of these 0,000/-per^i^iglj^forthe ta for the Category 'B' -v|\ compensation awarded, -ct, 1894 as explained in )01

(93) DLT 569 are slay in filing the appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledtq'proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar Cjeneralof this Court, to the concernedReferen be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb l7\.App.No..X195/2008& connected Appeals of VillageBharthal iy\.App.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App.No. 111/2010 & connected Appealsof VillagePochanpur T :p ;e Court. Decree sheets JUDGE V. ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW BELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA Appellant Through. Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.SiVe: Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,'Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand A^.H.S.;Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S:,RaLtela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshutomar, Adv9catefor Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma,Mr.S.K.So] Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates •ma, Mr.Jitin % versus UNIONOFINDIA& ANR. Through: Mr.SaiyayPoddar,SeniorAd Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.Mohitr Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.Kaui Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Seth Mr.BanlceyBihariShanna^M Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates CORAM: ' HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR • ORBER 12«01"2012 CMvAbbLNo. 752/2012fFar Ihis IS an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof6^'' January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave LA.App.No.1195/2008 anki and •••• Respondents vocate with ao Jadhav and nudi Kiran, i, Ms. AmitaSingh, r.Kunal Sharma and for DDA. accepted the notice Page 1 V:.;. ' ...;V ij"'; ' » ^ f|- •/••• . ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis apphcitionhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicaleiTor pointed out by decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in par; the respondent in the graph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmenttlie rate ofcompensationaJsessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'plrbigha'in pa.-agraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe carriedout forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY12,2012 pkb disputed by learned LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

) $-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 160/2012 MANGE RAM Appellant Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate / versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Pathak, Advocate for R- 1/UOI Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for R- 2/DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR