Veena Jain 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.'. JUDGE - JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI &th??LQLJ.U9.LL &9LLqYgrLQ&?.QLZ (GRID-A) LA.APP. 1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BRARTHAL) R.ANBIR. SFJA,RMA Appellant' Through: Mr.B.S.Maari, Mr..Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Ivjaan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jitin Tewáthia, Advocates 4r.Anand Yadav and Ms.Ani•ta Tomar, Advocates. •4r.Rohlas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder G.ødara, Mvocate Mr.N.,.Negi and Mr.FI.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S,(.Rout and ,Mr.B .K .Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansri, Advocates. Mr.Pànkaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rjesh 'Yadav, Mr.Deepak Kho.sh, Mr,Sn it. Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.LS.Dahiya. Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. • Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.Ii...Raute1a. ;Advocates kr respcdent iJ) appeals fic by t.JOi) \'L.rSUS UNION OF INDIA &. ANK.. .. Rcspondcnt Through: Mr.Sarjay Pocldar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Saijay Pathak. Mr.MohitraO acthav and M.s.Navlin Swain, I Ms.K.Kaumud.i Kican, AdvQcates for 1.ACTUOI Mr.A jay \Ternia, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesn Kuinar. Mr.S .K. Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr,Kunai Sharma, Aclvocatq for DDA 1A.APP.4-12/2008 & CMNo4096/2003 (Crss-Oection:); L.AAP?457./208; " APP 453i2008, I A APP G8/2OO8 & CM No 50901201i) (CUhL ObIL lions) LA.APP.697/200.8 & CM.No.433/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.70 i/20p8 & CM.No.5 10/2009 (Cross-Ohjecti.oi1s) L.A.APP.768t200$; LA.APP.70P.CC'; A.App. 'Jo. 1L9/2008 & connected Appeals of Vifle Bharttuit No. 294/2010 & connected ApeaIs of Village I3Uwas.rn 'App. Wo. ii 1/20.10 & onoctod AppeJs of Village Pochanpur ge 1012,9 LA.APp.77 I 2OO8 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-ObjectjoIs); LA.APP.772/2008, LA.APp.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/209 (CrossObjectjofls). LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.6 I I /2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP775/2008; LA.App.776/208. LA.APP. 777/2008; 1 A.App.782/2008 & CM.. No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA. APP. 783/2OO8 LA.App. 784/2008 ; LA.APP.785/2008; 1,A.App.798/2008 & CM No.6 1 5/2009 (CrosS-ObjectioflS); LA.App.799/2008 & CM.No.93 1/2009 ( Cross-Objectjois); IA.APP.8Q5/2OQg; LA.APP.806,L2008. LA.App.8 I 3/2008 & Ci\4.N0. I 795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App.314/2008 & CM.NO 806/2009 ( Cross-Objections); LA.App.g 1 8/2008; LA.App.8 I 9/2008; LA.APP.8o/20o8; LA.App791'2008. LA.APP83O/2008. LA.App832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP 844/2008• 1,A.App.845/2008; LA.App.873/2008 & CM.NO.779/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LA.App. 892/2008 & CM.No. 799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App.899/2008. 1,A.APp.901/2008; LA.App.91 5/2008; LA.App.95 1/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objectiojis); LA.APP.959/2008. LA;App.973/2008; LA.APp.974/2008 & Ci\4.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APp 975/2O08 LA.App976/2008; LA.APp.978/003; LA.App.986/2008 & CM No.572/2009 (("'rossobjections);LAApp993./20081 029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objectjois); LA.APP. 1031/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.App 1032/2008 & C1VLNO.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App. 1046/2008; LA.APP. lO47/2008;LA APP 1048/2008& CMNo.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1 A.App1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APp.1O5/70O8; LA APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 1052/2008; LA .A.PP. 1053/2008 & CM.No4 16/2009 (CrossOhject1o.ls);f AAPP I 054,'2008 & CM.N() I 766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP iOSS/2OO8•IA\pp 1057/2008 & (.'M.No,752,'20 11 (Cross-Objections). LA.APP. I 058•/2008& CM.No. I 557/2() I I (Cross-Ohjectjs); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. LA.App. 1O60/2008;LA.App 1062/2008 & CM.NO.546/2009 (CtOSSUbjCj); LA.A.PP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/209 (Cross-Objectjo). I ,A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.App. 1081/2008 & CM.NO462/2009(CI.ossOhIt. I A.APp. I 084!2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objectiolis); I .A APP. I 086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.App. 1 07/2OO8 CM.No.6 19/2009 ( 1 os -ObJect1ons) LA APP 1093/2008, A APP 1094/2008 LA APP 1095/200, LA.Appl 103/2008 & CM,No.441/209 (Cross -ObjetjoJ1s) .LA APP 1108/9008 C1\'1.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App. 1109/2008; LA.APP 1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/7009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 111/2008; LA.Ap.l 112/2008 (;M.No.383 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APp.1.1 13/2008 & CM.N(.3826/2Q (Cross-Objections); [,A.APP1 115/2008; LA.App.j 1 16/2OO; LA.Appj 121/2OOg LA,Appj 126/2008; LA.APP.1129/2008 &• CM,No.550,'2009 (Cross..ObiecJLc.); LA.APpl 130/20Og LA.App.1 131/2008 & CM.N0566,'7009 (CrossObjectj0rjs); LA.í-wp. 113 3/2008; LA.APP. 1135/2008 & CM.NO.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App.! 137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (CroSs-Objectjojs); LA.App. 1140/2008; L.A.App 1156/2008; LA.App 1157/2008; LA.Appl 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App. 1159/2008; LA.APp. 1161/2008; LA.APP. I 166/2008; LA.1pp.i 167/2008 & M.No.802/2OO9 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.App.1 168/2008; LA.APP 1170/2008; LA.APp. 1171/2008; LA.APP. 1172/2008; LA.App.1 173/2008; LA.App] 175/2008 LA.App.1 178/2008 1,A.App.1 179/2008• LA.APP,1 181/2008 LA APP. 1182/2008; LA.App. 11 83/2008& CM.No.6933,i2009 (Cross-Ohjectiojsji IA.APPI 184/2008; LA.APP118 5/2008• LA.APp1186/2008& C1\4.NO.7013/9O0c A!, No. 1195/2993 & coflected Appeals 0VilJge harthal A.ip. No. 294/2Ci0 & n cooected Appeai of Village Wjwasan !iApp Nc.1 1 /20) & c0 ,1I1(c:ted Appeals of Viliag(! Pochipur Page2o29 (CrOSSOhjectjofls); LA.APP 11 90/2o LA.APP 1191/2008; LA.APP 1192/2008; LA.App i J 93/2008; LA.App 11 94/2OOg LA.APP 1195/2008; LA.APP 1197/2008; LA.APP 11 98/2008& CM No 6935'2009C LA.APP 1200/2008; LA.APP 1202/2008; LA.APP 1203/2008; LA.APP 1210/2008; LA.APP 1211/2008; LA.App 1212/2008; LA.App 1213/2008; LA.App 1223/2008; LA.APP I 225/2008& CM.N0 6957/2009(Crossobii LA.APP 1226/2008; LA.APP 1241 /2008& CM.NO3 841/2009 (CrossObjectjons) LA.App 1243/2008; LA .APP. 1275/2008; LA.App 1276/2 1 252/2008; 008; LA.APP 1277/2008; LA.App LA.App 1279/2008. LA.App 1280/2008; LA.App 1281/2008; LA.App 1283/2008; LA.APP 1284/2008; LA;APP3 1/2009; LA;APp33/2009; LA.APP3 7/2009• LA.APP3 9/2009; LA.APP42/2009 & CM.NO746/)011 (CrossObjecti0fl); LA.App59/2009 LAApp7312009 & CM.N07103/2009 (CrossObiectjofls) LA.APP74/2009. LA APP 9/20o9 LA.App95/2009 & CM No 953/2011 (CrossObjectjos) LA.APPJ 08/2009• LA.App 109/2009; LA.App 121/2009; LA.APP 135/2009; LA;APP 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP 138/2009; LA.APP 139/2009; LA.App 140/2009; LA.App143/2009. LA.APPI44/2009 LA.App 145/2009; LA.APP I 62/2009; LA.App 187/2009; LA..App 190/2009; LA.APP 191/2009; LA .A PP.197/2009. LA.App 198/2009; LA.App 199/2009; LA.APP 201 /2009; LA APP 202/2009 LA.APP2O3/2009 LA.App 208/2009 & CM.NO7077/2009 (CrossObjectons) LA.APP2IO/2009 & CM.No970/2011 (CrossOhjectjofls) LA APP 2] 1/2009; LA.APP22O/2009 LA.APp22/2009. LA.APP223/2009. LA.APp224/7009 LA.App227/2009 LA.App230/2009 & CM.NO.72O6/2009 (CtossOhjectio11) LA.App241/2009. LA.APP24/2O09 LA.APP246/2009 LA.APP249/2009 LA.ApP257/2009 LA.App295/2009 LA.APP3OS/7009. LA.ApP367/2009 LA.App437/2009. LA.App447/2009 LA.APp4c8/70091 LA ;APP459/2009; LA.APP466/2009 LA.APP4SO/2009 LA.APP 481/2009; LA.APP489/2009 LA.App490/2009. LA.APp491/2009 LA.APP493/7009. '1.APP.494/2009; LA.APP495/2009 LA.APPS03/2O9. LA.APPSO6/2009 LA APP 507/2009. LA.APP508/2009. LA.App 509/2009 LA.APP5 I O/2009 LA. APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP 12/2009; LA.ApP5i3/209. LA.App567/219. LA APP 572/7009 IA APP 15/2010, LA APP 45'2010, i A API' 48'2'j10 LA.APP4O4/201 0; LA.App 13/2011; L.A.App 1138/2008; LA.Apj Il76/20g. LA.APJ' 11 77/2008; LA.App1701/2008 LA.App73 1/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.I.0(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisjtjo Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/200?..7003 dated 23.10.2002 Village Bharthaj l)Uij) 0/ /0 (GRJDB) Pro flounced on Jan (5 LA.APP 294./2010 (VILLAGF.. BIJWASAN) DF."'VE-NDER KUMA1 '1 'hrougii: i'.Ap1, No. ,0-/2008 &, connc APPCa;S of VIUage Bharthal Nø 2 94/2010 & cOnnected Appeal s of Viflag \p No .i/;Oio & COn e Bijwasafl fle;r(d Appoas of ViIige Pothanpur Mr.R.S Appellant .Tomar . Mr.Vjrendra Singii Page 3 of9 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 4 1-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus U0I & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for U0I/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by 1101. ]\4r.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by U()1 Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for 1)DA. -: LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.A.PP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55112010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP, 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/201() LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 1,A.APP.2891 12010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LAAPP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/201() LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 342/2010 LA.A.PP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 A.M.T. L 353/201() LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/20i0 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 760/201() LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/201() LA.A.PP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 40912010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 388/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP, 726'201() JI LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 73112010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 82812010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 99/20 10 & LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/20 1 1 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F. 10(3Q)96-L& B/LA/I 3417 jated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No.

28./2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) ANI) I.ipp. No. 1105/2008& conner.todAppeasotVillage Bharthal Uk App. No.29.412C110& coiinocted Appeals of Village Oijwasan I :i•fl./2010 & :ornectc'd ApPeals of Village Pocharwur Pge4 of 29 dK!! (GRID-C) Reserved o:December]8]J LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanl(j and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kurnar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav. Advocate for appellant in R-22) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohjtrao Jahav, and Ms.Navf in Swain, Advocates for UOi/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Shania, Mr.Kurial Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.S,th, Advocates for DDA. SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: LA.APp. 111/2010 L.A.APp. 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.App. 254/2010 LA.APP. 292/2010 LA.A.pp. 307/2010 LA.APP. 395/2010 LA.A.P.P. 40/2010 LA APP. 466/2010 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.App. 660/2010 LA.App. 767/2010 LAJ\ PP. 919/2010 LA.,App. 651/201 1 LA.App, 120/201 1 LA.App. 476/2011 LA.A.pp. 523/201 1 Li\.APP. 536/2.011 LA.APp. 154/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.App. 260/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 3.1 7/2010 LA.A,Pp. 396/2010 LA.APP. 432/2010 LA.APp. 4896010 LA.APp. 639/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APp. 768/2010 LA.App. 1052/201 0 LA.App. 116/2011 LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 485/2011 LA.App. 525/2011 LA.APp. 554/2011 LA:Apr'. 155/2010 LA.App. 209/2010 LA.APp. 24912010 LA.APP. 261/2010 LA.APp. 305/2010 LA.APp. 392/2010 LA.APP. 397/2010 LA.App. .433/2010 LA.APp. 577/2010 LA.App, 640/2010 LA.APP. 741/2010 LA.APP. 784/2010 .LA.PP. 61/2011 LA.APp. 117/2011 LA.App. 129/2011 LA.App. 521/2011. LA..App. 526/2011

1.A.APp 59 1/201 1 LA.APp. 156/20 10 .LA.App, 21 512010 LA.APp.250/2016 LA.APp. 270/2010 .LA.APP. 306/2010 LA.APP. 393/2010 LA.APP. 412/2010 LA.APp. 434/2010 LA.A.Pp, 635/2010 LA.APp,, 657!20fl0 LA.APP. 758/2010 LA.APp. 918/2010 LA.APP. 64/2011 LA.APp. 1.19/201 1 LA.App. 429/201 1 LA.App, 522/2011 LA.ApP. 535/2011 LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & cor.nected Appeals of Vilhige 8harthal tA.A,)p Ro. 294/2010 & conoected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L4./\pp. No. 111/2010 & con:Iect((lAppa: s of Vinage Pochanpur Page5 of2.9 Tv (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Sectioii 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: .fION'J3LE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR • QiDjR

06.O1.2tj12

¶1Since. the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties prsent at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appealspertaining to Notjcatjo,i No.F. 'O3096L& R/LA/134] 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographicail)! contiguous Villages Bharthaj, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

¶2Acquisition process for planned development of Dwarka Phase.- 11' in 1)elhi, commenced with the issuance of NotifIcatjon of 13th December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisi ion iCt, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, .I3ijwasan and Pochanpu]'.

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants herein in, the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondent:s vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002 2003; Award No. 28/20022003;and Award No.30/2002..2003 granting compensation @ 13.82 lacs per acre for BLock 'A' (level field with top soil) and 12.32 lacs per acre for 13Iock '13' (without top soil).

¶4L)isaTjsfie(j with the assess1eifl of market vaiue of their acquired LA.App No. 1i95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal J\.App. No. 294/200 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A./¼pp. No. i ii/i3:w & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur tv I I agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ T15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in I3lock 'A and @ TI 3.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages BharthaF and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of \/illage POchanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive. Engineer, Karnataica 110 using Board i's. Land Acquisition Qfficer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246; Anjani Molu Dessal vs. State of Góa andAir.,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Sub/i Rain and Ors vs. Sthte of Ilaryana and•A,n.,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala ('Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsi!dar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 scc 661; Ran vir Siigh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Ozindh1 Fákira Pat/i

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition... Officer, Jaigaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321, Ja, La! vs Union of India 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Raina Nand (since deceased) through LRs i's (J ion of India. & .Ar., 2002 (65) DRJ I (DB); Lid/jo Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE 41; Ghakas vs. $late of .Punjah & Ors., 2011 (9) SCA... E 362; .4vinash Dhavaji Naik i's. State. of Ma/zarashira, (2009) 1 1 SCC 171; Alma Singh Vead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of ilaryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; \V.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smi. Indu Khorant-, vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special LandAcquisition Officer & Anr vs.. MK. Rqfiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsjbhaj Dewji/j/zaj and ors vs.. Execji/j,'e Engineer, i'\.Apo No 11.95/2003 ?i connected Appeals of Village Bharthal No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan lJ\.App. No. .i.fl/2010& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Gu/arat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valiiyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land A cquLsition) and Anr., AIR 2011 Sc 2937; Kiran. Tandon vs. Aliahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashira, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of india & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om .Prakas/, (dea) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; jA •.APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kuniar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram i's. Union of India, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhule Ram vs. Union of India, 2010

(170) DLT 371. I On the strcngth of.the. aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned argtin.g counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has tO be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must, be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone. It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar, counsel for appellants that I)elhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IGI Airport, New Delhi No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharlhal A Ap,, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village 8ijwasan Ao,p. No. 11112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur PageR of 29 and Oil I)epots 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-Il again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farni Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solan¼i learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of \Tillage Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for developme. of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizras/rnap to highlIght that the boundary of \/illage Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous. It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for he appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate ihe potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16th October, 2000 vide which land use of the thee villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential! commercial/industrial etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification 0f24th October, 1994. It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Ra,na i.4.Ap. No. 1395/2003& conrectedAppeaisofvillageeharthal No. 29-1/2010 & coriiected Appeals of Village Bijwasan .!.App. No. 111/2010 & cormecl;ed Appeals of Village Pochanpur . .- Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass. vs. State of Harj'ana & Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be a4judged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any tse, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality. JO. Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from 7 52 lacs to Z62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition lai.d down by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessai i's. State of Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to he taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to 157 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates for.determining the 144-market value of the aquired land is patently erroneous.

¶11Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned col3nsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& 1)0 rates fixed by .the Government and also on. the basis . of pr-determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is LA./\pp, No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294 12010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connected.Appeals of Village Pochanpur 1 v7 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and \tillage Sam alkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka PhaseJ or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRS) as referred to above.

¶12In the written Synopsis, ,appellant Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds: a,)

"IWIOMS the acicnowzeclg.ement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.2612007.2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course qf the Proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in crossexamiflation of appellant dated

7.7.20o) b) Does not account for the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely' affected the. rates of land in the area for more than 15 years beforC the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Ac 1894 was issued t,

C) Valuing the land on the basis qf the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the Government of National Capital Territory qfDelhj is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in ne of the more recent decisions of the lion 'ble Supreme court in Sangunthala versus Tahsjidar, 2010'3 SCC 661. ignores the evidence and other factors which as per established law has to be considerd before ascertaining the value of the land under acquisjtjo, e) Does not deal with clispari; in value of the Sak Deeds prodiced before the trial court whereas as per the law established by the Hon 'ble Supreme court in the recent case of Chjnda Fak Ira Pa lii versus Special Land Acqui'itjo Qificer, civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The I-Jon 'ble Supreme court has specifically held that Sale Deed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in I.A.App. No. 2.195/2008 & conocted Apceals of Village Oharthal /\.App. No. 29412010 & connected APPCS of Village Bijwasar1 i..App No 11 J!20 & connected Appeajc of Village PochanpLlr /(KX case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessaj 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 types of sales transactions should be considered while a4/udicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f. Relied upon judgment dated 3:3.2008 in LA C No.9 7A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and 13, 36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the lion 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment refused to return an actual .finding on the issue No.] framed on 2 7.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Ivotification of the Municipal Corporation of. Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and B ha rtho / was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries (?f Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government fbr land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mentiQn that the appellant lead evidence in respect of the 741a amendment of the constitution of India, w. e.f 1.6.1993 JX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municzal area and the inuniciaI Ounselior was elected from there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area.

ii) Refused to apply the law laid down in AiR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of lndia and refused to consider the fact that the development in the area has a direct qffèct on the price that a willing purchaser would pay for the sub/ect land. D ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A./pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about Z2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. /, 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 account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes '?f .Pwarka Phase Ii. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Rharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries cf'Del/'zj State. 1,) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Ta/is ildar

(LA), (2010). 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the .foct whether the land has got building potentiality to be used for building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the landc acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired .for purpose f putting up residential quarters. As a portion oft/ic land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential qf being put in better use as house sites in the near future." In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have been provided with a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. Supplernertting the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of If\.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal .A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan .//\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur .. urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Datlatray Thirthkar vs. State QfMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Md,ra (Major General) & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr, 176(201 1) DLT 361 and that Pre-

i)etermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed bythe Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior co unsel urged that though as per Section 51-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence for determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village étc are also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai Lcd ps. Union of India. 2002 (62) DR..J 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; La! C'hand vs. Union of India and Any.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar v. Union of India, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increas in price in a shdrt period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA./\pp. No. 119512008& connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l.A,App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur - and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsing, Beas, relied upon y the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-l)etermjned Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this court in Sushi! Kurnar (stpra) and Raj Singh (supra). So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respo.ndents/cross-objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing. the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1st April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kiirnar (supra) appreciation. @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modjfied deleting the enhancement by... the Reference Court while taking into consideration the appreciation 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation ( 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. After considering the rival submissions advanced by both tlie sides and upon close perusal of the impugned judgment, the evidence on reco:rd and thedecisions cited, what emerges is that the true market vahe o f-the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to a willing LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A.Aop. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan tA.App. No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 15 of 29. I seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass i's. State of Haryana ,& Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the City or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind qf importance or because of its explosive population; ai) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercIal or industrial, as the case may be; possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for Occupants of buildings to be put up on that iand, absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired lanfor building purpose; (v,.) existence of highways, public roads, layouts qf building plots or developed residential extensions. in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land, benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land, and lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few."

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for l.AApp. No. 1195/2003 & connected Appeais of Village Oharthal I A.App. No. 194/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LO.App No. 13.11010 & connected Appeals of Villaga Pochanpur which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It .has been so observed by the Apex Court in Ai'inash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atinc, Singh (supra) that the exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions. rel ied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated haying similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justifiation for reducing the cOmpensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquifed. land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden, of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on rthe State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpOse But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tana'on (Supra) can be refèlTed to with advantage.

¶21Apex Court in :Valliyarnmal (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mo/u Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- I A/pp No. 195/2008 & ccmIected Appeals of Village Oharthal l.A.App. No. .94/2010 & con!'ectea Appeals of Viflage Bijwasan l.A.App No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . . q4__~ "The legal position is that even where theie are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can he 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. C'onsequentiv averaging cannot be resorted to."

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acqi4ired lands made by the Apex Court in (hind/ia Fakira Pall! (Supra), vhicli are as follows:- - "It is well settled that genuine and bona Jide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonajIde sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utiliij taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor whih 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 mar/cet value."

23.. Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on jbur factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of áei'elopinent in the vicinity increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, withott any sudden spuf'ts or jumps. A.A1,p. N. 33 95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No 294/2010& connected Appeals of Village Bijwasar LA.,'ap, No. 131/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpw . Page i of 29 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 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated .for ))ears or rose marginally at a nominal rate of] % or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urhan/semjjirban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% 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 taken to the mode qf determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years ('as çvidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions Or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to .five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even f it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become . unsqfe and unreliable standard where the gap. is larger. For example, for determining the market . value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or :.A.App. No. .! .1/2008 & connected Appeals Of Village Bharthal A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Uijwasan I.A.App, No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of VilIge Pochanpur acquisitiofl in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years the 'rate' of annual increase ma)) itself undergo drast likelihood ic change apart from the of occurrenc of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.

¶24This Court ismjnd1 of the dictun of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrithi Development Crporatjon (HSIDQ (Supra), regarding computation of co * mpensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparatj,e' sales methods.. What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under: - •'When different categories of lands (or lands with c4fferent situational advantages) are acquired for the same PWPQS e say .fàr 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 uNform rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notitIcation"

¶25Undisputedl)7 in these appeals sale exemplars in and aroVn, 'acquired land of Village Bharthal Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar Strongly relid upon by the appellants is of Village Pocharipw. i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious iflStjtutjo1 i.e., Radha Swami &tsang Bead had purchased the agriculJ land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from Z52 lacs to !62 lacs per acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PW1,'4 to Ex.PW 1/10) which are basically betweeii one set of CO-o\ers and Radha Swami Saisang, Seas in respect of the compact blck of land measuiirig 18 Bighas and 6 Bis was situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market vakie of he land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required 10 be answered Ividentl)T, aforesaid' sale exeml)laI .s, i.e., Sale 'Deeds L4.Ap1), Nc, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthaj LA.App, No, 294/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.A)I) No. 11 1/2010 & connected Appafs of Villgt Pochanpur ' (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1'/1O) indicate that its price varies from52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- SaJe Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW1/10) did not Command' the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Svidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired lan4 in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vie Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has rit' been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural Ind has not been got examiiied by the appellants. Ha the pUrchaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been cliciteci 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 Salsang, Begs' who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale I)eed eecuted on 25th March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jill Singh vs. Union qf India, decided on 3.8.201 1 and in I.A. App. I No. 999/201 titled as Raf Sing/i vs. Union f India. decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions the sale exempIr of Village ' Mamurpui• was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as represefltative price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands I was changed much prior to their acquisition but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agriculturalpurpose till their acquisition. i'hu, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing f.App !195/2008 & Conflecttd Appeals of Vilage t3harthal j Ape. No 294/2013 & connected AppaIs of Village Bijwasan A.App, No. fli!iQj & conn€ctc,d Appeals of Village Pothanpur - - market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless "V 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-1 / 10) 'have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. So •far as the sale exemplar of \Tillage Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of !1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of 27th January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/1 1) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/1 1) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, bQring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot he treated as a representative price fo1 the acquired lands in question. Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands aiid Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market valUe of the acquired lands in question. I - 30. Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reportcd as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Qfficer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority ilyderabad and (rs., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. however, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed layout in t& nghborhood LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal i.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasan .A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur =0 or whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhoodit becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales ofplots in the layo4ts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched if sold on the date of the publication qf the preliminajy not (ficcit ion under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched by the sqles of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands b'comes available, then what could be done is to find out the marketvalue of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of pub/icatioji under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiauiy ascertained on the basis of evidence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shqll not exceed 115th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user Since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for building plots even if formed in the acquired land"

¶31In \'iew of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged b y the D.DA after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/IkeDetermjfled Rates in determining the market value of thel adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Cii and (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Sing/i (Supra) arid SzisIüi Kuinar (Supra) has excluded the I)DA rates qua the developed landsas being not relevant for assessing the market value of L.A.App. No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lA.App. No. 294/201() & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected 'ppeals of Village Pochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Detern-jined Rates fot alternate11ot1ents for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village .Bharthal and.other villages for development bf Dwarka. Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the rspondent/crossobjector that even if the escalation at the Compounded rate of 10% per annum is thken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-fl, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may

be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the . gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, 'i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka l'hase-IJ is of sixteen' years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the' mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate L/\.App. No 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Viflage Bharthal

1.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . - escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years. 1\4r.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation , 10% per annum. After having perised the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushi! Kurnar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court @ 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference CoUrt is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for ihe agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. 1 " April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instnt appeals deserves to be further increase4 or not. Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricu1turaI land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural land by virtue of Notificatitn of October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. it is ti-tie that vide aforesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to l.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal t.AJ\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan .A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appealsof Village Pochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being V' considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha SwamI Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in question. But, in4eed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance. of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) without leading any evidence to establish that.the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity, of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/1 1) cannot be ireated to besufficient ground to grant higher compensation while relying up011 the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referred dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development corporation (HSID() (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land iii 1)elhi, which generally factoxs in the rise of price due to highei potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what .A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal - I.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur - ---- would be expçcted to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Sing/i (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken 1 by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Sing/i (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters perLaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplrs is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil and I3harat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Darka Sub-City, Part I and Part IIdividiithè acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm H uses; in th vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of

aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly, assume higher building potentiality, being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I.: What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market1 value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the lA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur -N settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan K/ian i's. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality." Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qa potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and \/illagc Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushi! Kuinar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determined, by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantagds providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question. Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Villag Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appcals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appea's of Village Pochanpur the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent / indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined @ 16,50,000/- per•'for the Categoiy 'A' land and @ T .14,69,600/- per b ha for the Category 'B' lands ln.question. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in Sun4er vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except or the period where there is a delay in'filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. Tlese appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets he accord.ihgly' prepared. . (SUN.IL (21AUR) JUDGE January 06, 2012 pl< h * :/i' .A App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal tpp N0. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A App, No. .1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocharipur '4. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI j vvV + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms. Smita Maan, Mr.R. S .Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.FI.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,Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms .Navlin Swain, Ms .K.Kaurnudj Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethj, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'I3LE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR QRDER %

12.01.2012 c.M.ALNo. 752/2O12For correct i). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order 0f(th January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice K - LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 . 4& ~F-of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to reP-laming counsel for the appellants. The typographical errorpointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6" Janu-ary, 20121s that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'pel bigha', whereas it should be per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearing for the appellants Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paiagraph no 40 of LA App No 1195/2008 be read as 'per acie' Necessary con ections be earned out forthwith En view of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of . (SJNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb

* IN THE hIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on. December 18, 2011 Pronounced on. January 06, 2012 -I- LA.APP. 639/2010 • VEENA JAIN Appellant 'Through: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr. Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR