Sudha Mehta v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

29.03.2012 CM No. 5423/2012 (tt/S 151 CPC) Delay of 594 days' m re-filing the accompanyingappeal is sought to be condoned by this application,which is supportedby affidavit of learned counsel for the appellant.. Upon Notice, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates for respondentsNo. 1 & 2 respectively,state that only oppositionto this applicationis that for the period of delay, the appellantought not be grantedintereston the compensationamount in the event of her succeeding in the appeal. Since the reasons disclosed in Paragraph No. 3 of the application does not display gross negligence, therefore, this applicationis allowed and the delay of 594 days' in re-filing the accompanyingappeal is condonedwhile makingit clearthat for the delayedperiod,the appellantshallnot begrantedinterestinthe event of succeeding in the appeal. LA.APPNo.82/2002 Page1 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. - 7, With aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of. LA.APP. 82/2012 The instant appeal relates to Village - Pochanpur, where vide Notificationpf 13*^ December,2000, the land of the appellantstood acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned order of 8^ March, 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-UOI, states that the subject matter ofthis appeal stands covered by the decision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008 'Ranbir Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr.' rendered on 6*^ January, 2012, wherein compensation amount in respect of lands acquired in Village Pochampur has been enhanced to ^16,50,000/- per acre for the Category 'A' land and to ?14,69,600/- per acre in respect of Category 'B' lands. Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that case of the 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 the interest for the delayed period. This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. MARCH 29,2012/rs L GAUR) JUDGE LA.APPNo.82/2002 Page 2 / (j IN THE HIGH'COURT OF DELHI AT'NEW DELHI \Reserved on: November18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 (GRID-A) LA.AEP.l195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) Ry\NBlR SHARJ\4A jrhrough; Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mx.R.S.Verma,j^r.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. ; Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate ' Mr.IS.S.Negi and Mr.H. S.P^autela,Advocate ; Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. ! A4r.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh 'Yadav,Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosia I and A'lr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates I Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate, ! Mr.I.S.Daliiya, Advocate I Mr.SandeepThakhiir,A'dvocate I Mr.AtuI Tripathi, Advocate. i Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor I respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) versus I LiNIOT^ OF INDIA&ANR. Appellant Respondents Througii: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay • Pathak,Mr.Mohitrao.Vadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain, ; Ms.K.KaurnudiKiran,Advocatesfor LAC/UOI I Mr.AJayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.Mukesh I Kumar,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal I Sharma,Advocatefor DDA LA.APR.41^/2006&. CM.No.4096/2008 rCni-ss-Obiections);J.A AP'P 452/2008• LA.AP^.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& CM.N..5990/2010(Cross (Crossl-Objections);LA.APP,70i/20()8& CM.Ko.S10/.009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.7'70./2008: |AApp.No. l.l<).S/2008&conncctedAppealsofVillngeBharthal IA.App. No. ?.9.;/?.010&connactedAppealsofVillageBljwasan lA.App. No. ]:l.l/?.010&Konnwtad AppealsofVillagoPochanpur •Pagt; 1 0) 23 LA.APP|.771/2008& CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Qbjections)'LAAPP lllPViOR-CMNo^^n/20n^^&CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& 7A (Cross-Objections); LA.APP;775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP.782/2008& CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Obiectionsv' LA.APP.785/2008;LA.AP;798^200r& CM.No^l5/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP'.799/2008 & CM No 931/2009 LA-APP;805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APp:813/2008& C^M.No^795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.81.4/2008 & CM.No806/2009 Cross-0|bjections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APPvS19/2008-LA APP 820/2008-T nn'"'' LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP:832/2008; LA APP 833/200^ LA.APRg44/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APP.873/2008& CM.No.779/2011 (Closs-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross ObiectinnqV T (Cross-Objections); LA.AI^P.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008-r^A ATiTi^ ^ CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections)-IA APP 975/2008-LA.APR976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008;LA.APP|.986/2008& CMNo572^ (Cross-Ofaect.ons);LA.APP.993/2008;LA,APP.1029/2008&CM.N0.I73S08 vCioss Olpjections),LA.APP.1031/2008& CM No 17335/2008fCrn<;q Dhippr ^ LA.APP,,032/2008&CM.No.599/2009(CrosSobStonri LA,APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/200S&CMNo 78^1fi?09 frmrnhitt ^ LA.APP.1049/2008&CM.No,420/2009(CrossiObjections)-LArpp°So08 CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-oUctionsVLAA^P 0^2 CuZS^- rr ^^^0.4,6/2009(Crcss-Gbjeii""s);/ilp1ffo54;2to8I CMN°7^Morr^f "•'^''^'•J055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& rrw. nW . • (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CMNo 1557/2011 r'Prr^c (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008cS: CMNo6l9/^0n0 sssE rirl J ^rvrc OK-' V ^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.ll13/2008 & CMNo3826/90PQ LA.APP.1137/2008&CMNo 17283/200SrPrntf^^i^' . ? LA.APR1So8-1ASpTm/2ooT LA.APP.'i!mnZ\ LA.APPJii7.So8:LA.APP 78?!: LA.APP,n73/2008: .LA.APP.1182/2008-LA APP 1183/9008^ LA.APP,1181/2008; -.APP."p4,2008rLA.AP^-//S^St™(C~^ lA. i.A, .APP NO. U9VP.008&co;nn<,ctedAppeal.,ofVillageBharthal 'App' Nr' fnSont ^°ri"ocledAppealsofVillageBijwasan •App. Mc. .11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 2 of 29, I % (Cross-qbjections);LA.APP.1190/2008;LA.APP.l191/2008-TAapp noonnno LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.124I/2008& sis5=,ispi LA.APP.73/2009 & CMNovSoQ Snltnt r™',' LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.f5/2009T LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP12^009 (Cl'°=^9bject.ons) LA.APP.1^6/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA APP 138/2009-LA.APP.^40/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA APP u'i^OO^- LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; LA APP f90/2009-LA.APP.1:97/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; LA APP i'99/^009- <;roS2tiisss; ssrr? (Cross-Olyections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA APP A5/2009-LA.APP.2il9/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP447/2009-Ta"™ LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP480/2009-LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009-LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.5p3/2009-LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.5(:)9/2009-LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.513/2009' LA.APP.15/2010; LA.AP,P.45/2010' LA.APP.13/2011; LA.APP.ill38/2008;' LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.4Q4/2010; LA.APP.11|77/2008;LA.APP.'1201/20()8;LA.APp'.23rJ2009^ (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13 12 2000 (GRID-B) LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009; CM.No.7027/2009 CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.APP.481/2009 .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 Re^M on: Decemhpv08. 2011 Pronojkicedon: January06. 201? i ' • LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) ' DEVENDERKUMAR ' a . !• Ihrough; Mr.R.S.Tomar[N|r.VirendSingh ItV' T' VillageBharthal ,11 m"' ^ ccnn|ectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan \PK No. J.'.VSOIO&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpui Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanld and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 58, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA. APP.l 52/2010 LA. APP.i 56/2010 LA.APP.il 00/2010 LA.APP.i242/2010 LAAPP.|282/2010 LA.APP.1287/2010 LA.APP.I295/2010 LA.APP.i346/2010 LA.APP.i350/2010 LA.APP.i354/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP.l360/2010 LA.APP.l405/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP-. 409/2010 723/2010 LA.APP.1727/2010 LA.APP.1750/2010 LA.APP.1964/2010 LA.APP. ;77/2010 Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates fbrUOI/L/^CJ Mr.S.K.Solanfiand Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Rojutray,Advocatesin appeals filedby UOI. ' Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma., Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forDDA. : 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. 36172010 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 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.XPP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.XpP.223/2010 LA.XpP.277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APS. 352/2010 LA.APl^l 357/2010 LA.XpP.760/2010 LA.XpP.362/2010 LA.XpP.407/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.API. 725/2010 LA.APi731/2010 LA.XpP.764/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 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. & 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.i75/2010& C.M.No.964/2011 (Cross-objections) !, (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&: Bi/LA/i3417 dated 13. issued uhder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Aw 28/2002-^2003,"VillageBijwasan,Delhi) | ; ' AND i ^

12.2000 ard No. IA./ipp.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. Ni5. 29/I/?.CI10&jconnectedAppealsofVillageDijwasan 1A-App. iMo.'111/2010&jtonnectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur % (GRID-C) I Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Prmmnced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.:111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUrI SEHAJIlAM AND ORS. "s Through: I .....Appellants Mr.B.D.Shamia,Mr.S.K.Solanldand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29,30, 33,36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63ito 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.|6r, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) I versus UNIONQF INDIA 8^ ANR : • Through; j I .....Respondents Mi.SanjayPo,ddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SaiijayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao •Tadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates fbrUOI/LAC; ^ Mr.BankeyBiheyiSharma.Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.$omerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. ' I 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. 11;1/2010 1^0/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 • 919/2010

6.5/2011 120/2011 476/201] 523/201 r 536/201] 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-I.A.A,p No' m/2moa ' • p. NO. Jxi/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur LA'.APP; LA.APP.i LA.AJ^P.;' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.Aflp.; la.aPp. LA.APP. LA.APP.. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. T.'A.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 .433/2010 577/2010 ,640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 6]/201] • 117/2011 129/2011 321/2011 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 270/20] 0 306/2010

393./2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010

657../20!0. . 758/2010

918./2010 64/2011 119/20] 1 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 Page 5 of 2.n % (Relating; to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,jvillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BI^EMR. JUSTICESDNILGAUR ORDER

06.01.2012

¶1Since,the grounds on which enhanceiiientof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch (ff appeals are identical, •thereforewith the consentof learnedcouns|elfor the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these buncli of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dfted 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-IP in Delhi, commenced with the issuance,of Notific.ation of if' December, 2000 under Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertammgito vast tract of agricultural laiid in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agncultui-alland of the appellantshelrein in the aforesaidtliree villagesstpodacquiredby the Respondents\^idethreeseparateAwards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No;2g'2002-2003;andAward ^No.30/2002-2003,granting compensation lacs per acre for 'Block 'A' i(level field-with top soil) and @^2.32 lacs per acre for Block'B' (iwithouttop soil). ' : 4-Dissijiusfiedwitlithe assessmentofmarket'valueoftheiracquired AApp.,^0.1195/2U08&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. NO. 294/?,oao&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan .^^.App.No. J.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page Gof 29 lA.Apn No. :l19;VZ008!i connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. No. 29'1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Mr

¶14 • I agricultijrallands, appellantshad soughtreferenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the RefeipnceCourtvide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@|?|5.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' ank @^13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bhartliai and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhayeJbeendismissed.

¶5In these appeals,further enhancemeritof compensationsoughtby I j the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bij^yasanis at the rate ofRupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought ' _ i compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirtylacs per acre by relyingupon I ; the precedents in the shape of decisions-in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246; AnjaniMolu'Dessaiys.State of Goa andAm., I <

(2010) li3 see 710;SubhRam and Ors vsi S'tateofHaryanaandAnr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead), through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsilddr(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 See 661; RanvirSingh andAnr, vs. UnionofIndiaAIR 2005 Se!3'|67;ChindhaFakiraPatU

(D) through LRs ra. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; I I ; Rama N^nd(sincedeceased)throughLR^', Union ofIndia& Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., ! 2010(9) iSCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE !362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. Siaie ofMaharashtra,(2009) II sec ;171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryand & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003-tided as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; I i SpecialLand'AcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7SC-C 7:14; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCO 115\ RisalSingh & Ors, Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 52;7 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union ' '• I of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769;! GeneralManager, Oil and I ' '' Natural Gas Corpoi'ation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCCj745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SQ 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh I ' I • Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) S. Ors. ys,i Union of India & Anr, 176(201,1)DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/20017titled as SuratSingh Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., jdejcided on 24.04.2008; Om PrakasH(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; I . I i Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997| 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. I ; No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. pnion of India, decided on

26.O9.20ll;LA. APP. No.59/2007 titledjas Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam V5. Union ofIndia,2010

(170)DLT371. I

¶6On the strengthofthe.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it' I \yas urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants thatthe locationand situationofthe acquirMagriculturalland has to be tirst understood in order to appreciate its ^potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over aperiodof time and,the same cannotbe limitedto thenear futurealone.

¶7It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,|ounselfor appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes throughthe land of VillageBharthal,'dividingit' into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,Nev/ Delhi u\./\pp.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •A.App. No. 2M/20iO&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat.'Petroleum and a road 100 meters )vide startingfrom NI-I-8 from Shiy jkurtitowardsDwarkaSub-Cit)^ Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions;(i) North Easternside, ^vhere IGl|Airportis located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFanii^Housesare located on the land of;VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanl^ilearnedcounselfor the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI lAirport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for ; r, establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developjmqntof DwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/msi^to highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguo|us. i

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has ^failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegallyItreated the acquired land to be; agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"' October, 2000 vide v villages :in question was changed from commei-Qial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24"' October1994 ' I 3' •

¶9It ms argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counselfpr the appellantstliatthe aforesaidItWo Notificationshave been wrongly discardedby ,tlie ReferenceCourt by relying upon P. Rama JA.ApD, No. 1195/2008&cpnnp.clGd-AppeaisofVillageBharthal I .A.App. No. 294/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l--.App.No. J.U/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ :i I : Page9of,29 ^hfch land use of the three i agricultural to residential/ Reddi& Qrs. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,\Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredb}^ the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Bass vs. State ofHaryana Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the are^ over a periodof time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone; and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthereisno buildingpotentiality. ! , I • '1

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the , appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfroin ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and meiely because of the said variation,these Sczie exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by th& ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these salejexemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per .^settledlegal proposition laid down by the Apex'Court in AnjaniMolu•Dessai vs. State of Goa andAm., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsde exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the| Istnd which comes to ^57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances,-therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circleratesfor detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquipdland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellants'onthe basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by the Government and aso on the basis.of pre determined:rates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate plots mthe'year2000-2001.Keepingin viewlthl;location,situation,and potentiality^of the acquired land, determinationof its market value is l-A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 7-sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the baks'ofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or DetemiinedRates (PDRs)as referredto aboW.

¶12In :the writtensynopsis,appellant-Imp.ulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) :"ignores the admowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003dated in -7.0/1-> yv . '23.10.2002 being flawed in proceedings Civil Writ petition (Referred to in cross-examination\of appellant dated •7.7.2007) ' I t h) Does not accountfor the fact tlaat the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectekthe rates ofland in the areafor more than 15 years Ijeforethe Notification under Section5 ofthe LandAcqilisitionAct, 1894 was issued. ; i I I c) Valuing the land on the basis jo/ the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble\ Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,201Q{3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfhdtors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin valudofthe Sale De^ds prod.ucedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law estabhsnedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recent case of^ Chinda Fakira Patil vkrsus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The ™ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnU be disregardedin lAApp.No. 1195/2008&con'necledAppealsof VillageBharthal ;aApp.no. 294/2010&connoctcdAppealsofVillageBiSsarf .-/•-•App. No. .11,2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur on the basis of the Pre-the course of the No.19012 of 2006. Page H of 29 .f) case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai vj. State of Goa, '2010(13)SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held \hat the highest of the exemplars and not by averagiAg^.ofdifferent ty^pes of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certanland. Relied upon judgment datek 3.3.2008 in LAC N0.-97A/2006to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoringthe material market value of the'land is much : acre in Block A and 113,36,000 of the law laid down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court includingin Subh Ram v^. Staie of Haryaiia 2010(1) , SCC 444. As a consequence, the.impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfindirig on the issue No 1 \framedon27.2.2007. \ ( ' ' • h-g): Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide • . . •Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the Iland use.of Village Dhool Svr'as\;,andBharthal was changedand these areas ceasedkd-be agriculturaland :came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications'of Governmentfor land use. change show that in\ future land can be •subjected to residential, conmercial and other •permissible uses. It is alsopertinentto mentionthat the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74'^amendment of the ConstitutionofIndia, w.i.f:1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where thd, land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the\municipalCounsellor was electedfrom, there. No Panchayatelections were held in the area. h) Infused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Pomt 3467, RanvirSingh and A^r vs. Union ofIndia \andrefusedto considerthefact tHat;jhedevelopm.entin the area has a directeffecton the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.APP. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal . .App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. IMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur which indicate that the higher than 15 lacper in Block B in violation auctioKdsimilarlysituatedlandas commercialbloch at the rate ofabout K2.6 lakh and concludedthat the •said landis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationqfthesubjectland is m^en lower than the pre-determmedauction rates set RespondentNo 2 jor similarly situated land. I ; i k) Does not take into accountthepossibilityofchangeof thejeofthe landalthoughthe ikn^,.,as acquiredfol de^elopmmt purposes of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is • Bhaithal wm changed and these areas ceased to be "§-DelU^a^r^ ^""^daries ' I if-I) IgmredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24 101994 although they clearly establish 'the commercial (.^f (2010)3see 661 It was heldjhatthepurposefor f^ch land is acquired is a ret<^antfaLrwiZ 'he fact for buimnl potentialityto be 'used M buildingpurposes in immediatkor in nearfuture needs to be considered I ^ acquued and the satd land being ipccupied by the we eLlldf The lands quartZZ^, K """ZT, "P residential ZZe titi irT-consideredas noiise site, the adjoininglands have the potentialof ' beingputin betteruseas housesitesinVienearfuture.

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved P.I and olers of LA. App No . 347/2009,the factualdetailshave been provided'withaprayerthat the appellantso| this appeal be treatedat par witljthe 6o-appe.latrtsof tlte otherappeal?in thesebunchofappeals. li; - '4, Supplememingtheaforesaidargu,.entsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,>t;wasurgedbyMr.AnandYadav,Ajivoeatethatthe,effectof 1W2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • if urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin land use'hasbeen consideredin MaheshDaStatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapUMehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia ^ 'Anr, 176(20n»)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeteraiinedRates, Resei-vedAuctionRatel of tlie area are relevantto determinethe market value of the acquiredlands and infact the sale mstancesreliedupon by tileappellantsarecomparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhUement of compensation reflecting:just, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin theseappeals. I

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby theJRespondents,Mr.Satyay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas perSection51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, acertifiedco^y of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same camiotbe!t^ken as relevantevidence ior determmationof the market value unltsji and.until the same is properly connectedwith the land-in question!'and elementof special fancy oftl,epurchaserand otherfactorsnamely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are als.^ requiredto be considered atrd the saleinstancesrehedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have bedn.illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtandwhileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsmJaiLai v.. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRI 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. ijHion ofIndia andAnr.,

(2009) 15 SCO 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008Utiedas SmhilKumarvs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it wa^ urgedthatshaipincrease mprice in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntilreasonsfor S"ch sharp ^increaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.APP. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan • pp. No. 1.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpwr Qaestion,i.e., the change in I and the purchaseras no prudentpersonhaying Icnowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay sucjhahigherpay as reflectedin the sale.instance of Radha SM'ami Satsarig, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration,jxhus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which -has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SushilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra). i 16, So far as potentialityof the land isiconcerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the ' I minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturailland by the Governmentas on 1'' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as |in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deletiiig•the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considera);idnthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deservesto be brbiightin line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the, cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. ;

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the ' ' '! sides and,upon,closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon I recordand the-decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparablelandis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto av/illing LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal U.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lV\.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 15 of 29. seller and the best evidence is the conifjarablesale instances. While dealing|with the questionofpotentialvalijie.pfthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof; stands reiterateaby the Apex Court in Udho Bass vs. State ofHaryana 2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords:- |

(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor , the town or vdlage which had l^een growingin size • because of its commercial, industrial, educational, : religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation; \ i I . (ii) tlKsuitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as the case may be;

(ui) possibilit);ofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland; I

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose; j 6^ existence, of highways, public broads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityo^tfieacquiredland; \

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions health care centres,-or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land \which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the • acquiredland; and j ^ I (viiA landsaroundthe acquiredland,orthe acquiredland, \ Itself being in demandfor building purposes to • specify afew. " i J8. Theipotentiahtyoflandfor the purpose!o?developmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon alargenumberof factors.For the said purpose,tlje Court may not onlyhave to be|irin mind the purposefor Ia'^h T lU,n I AppealsofVillageBharthal .A."pp,No. ?mU010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i-A.App NO.U1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagepochanpur lA.App IA.App LA.App which tl^e lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events t6 some extent. If has been so observedby the Apex Court in Avinash\{su-pvdi).Whilereiteratingthe relev; of compensationfor acquiredlands,it has been held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarscifsmallpiecesof land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandweren^t available. . 19. Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficerd Anr vs. 3£K RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon ant factors for detemiination on behalf of the appellantsis that where either in^location, situationor potentialityol the villages, which are similarly:situatedhaving similar advantage availableto them even as regards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well establishedproposition provingthe true marketvalue of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally ti^e that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the ;h^.re is no basic difference of law that the burden of Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be

¶21Apex Courtin;Fa/Z/jamma/(Supra),v that the Required land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,itc.,had heldthat deduction i of 40% towards development charges was iimproper. The pertinent .observationsmade by the'ApexCourt in A^miMolu Dessai(Supra); deserveattention,whichareas under:- referredto with advantage, vhile taking note of the fact IMo, 3195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal No. :.'.94/20,10&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan Ho. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I "The legal position is that even whene there are several exemplars with reference to similar Iqrids, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bdna fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the marketprice. But where the values )disvlosedin respectof ti'Vp sales are markedly different, it dan 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: otherprice depressingreasons. Cpri^equentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. " Tl. It would be worthwhileto take note iafitheclinchingobsen'^ations pertainingto deteiminationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira ^Patil (Supra), which are as follows "B: is well settled that genuine iand 'bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto 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 expectedto reflect the true value, as agreedbetween reasonableprudentpersons acting in the normal market conditions me the real basis to determinethe marketvalue." | V

¶23Principlesto determinethe marketv^lue of the acquiredlands as leiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- I "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin sufroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land\J.n the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity?, increase in prices would b.e slow, steady and .gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. l.A.A|)p.No. J195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ! l..A./^pp.Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu^ i • I I rage Xo Or zy ¥ On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development-isfaster, where the demiindfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to., rapid development and high kema^id for land, the escalations in prices have touched nwre per year, during the nineties. C remote rural areas where there, was' no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers the prices stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a norninalrate 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 6f lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the correspondingincreasesin rural^^reaswouldat best be only^around,halfofit, that is about5%.^to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the gejneral trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absence&fplearandspecific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor applyinga higher[rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the',actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. . | . Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe marketvalue by providingappropriateescalationover the provedmarketvalue ofnearbylands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsoracquisition),where there IS no evidenceofany contemporaneous'saletransactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition bylonlyafew.years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even ifit relatesto a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandcii;difthe gap is onlya few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger.For example,for determiningthe market-valueof a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with refe:re;ace to a sale or i.A.App. No. .nS5/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageEljwasan >.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur even 30% to 50% or n the,other exti^eme, in

¶24I acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the ^ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergodrasticchange apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease. " ' ! Ihis Courtis mindfulofthe dictumof!theApexCourtin Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation\liSIDQ(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the aqquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods.Whatwas saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is:as under:- ; •; I, "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, 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 all landsacquiredunderthesamenotification."

¶25Undisputedly,in these appeals sale iexemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Villagep^wasan of the period in . questionare not availableand the solitarysaie'Wemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pocheinpur at a price whichvariedfrom?52 lacsto ?62 lacsperacre.' ^ I

¶26WhetlieraforesaidSaleDeeds (EX.PW41/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetween;one set ofco-ownersaidRkdhaSwamiSatsang, Beasin res|)ectoftlie.compactbiocicoflandmeasuring18 BighasandS Biswassiti(atedin VillagePochanpurreflecttlie correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis tiremootIqrestionwliichis required to be answ'ered. Evidently,aforesaidsale e>(emplare. i.e., Sale Deeds lAApp.No 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' ;• U.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i 0^ m (fcx.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-l/IO)indicatetliatits'pricevaries from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, exemplar-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ej.piw-l/lO)did not command the same mai'ketpricesIt was dependentupon'thenatureandsituationof the aforesaidlands. Evidence to establish|flue advantagesattached to each parcel of land of these sale exemjilm-s with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesalee>:emplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to j^x.PW-l/lO)has not been brought out as the purchaseiVvendeeof these'agriculturaland has not been got ^examinedby tlie appellants.Had the pm-chaser/vendeeof the aforesaid.saleexemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedftbm him as to why he had agreedto^aysuchahiglipricefor these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beafwhohad purchasedmore thm'33 Bighas of land at an exorbitantprice in VillageMamurpurvidejSi|leDeed executedon 25'" March,2000was also subjectmatterin LA. .^pp. No. 266/2008tifledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on :?3.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled,as Raj Singh vs. Urifoh of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,thj; sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhileholdingthat^h? samecamiotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.! ' . 27-. In tlie instantmatters,thoughthe land use Of the acquiredlands ' was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,iu|ithas come in evidence thatthe acquiredlandswere beingused fora^iiulturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomesevidentthat the acquired lands were not developedlands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing |.A.App.No. •..195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ../ ./.pp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan tlie entire land of the sale I '• i marketprice of the land in questionwould Day such a high price unless and until;suchpurchaseis meantfor special!considerationand so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplarof Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-1/11) reliedupon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof ?1,76,55,172.41per acre rdatingto Sale Dee| of 27"" January,2000, it needs to ,be noted that because this sale exdmplar (Ex.PW-1/11)was situated on the National Highway - 8 ar(d because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11)vendorhad soldnot onlythe landbutthe structurethereon including:tube well, boring,fitting,fixture, it had fetched such a high price. In view cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left \vith no sale exemplarsdisclosingi;ealisticprice ofsimilariy situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is reqtiiredto be consideredas to whetheradoptionofL& DO circularrates for the developedlands and fi^"DeteiminedRates for the alternateplots -l^y the DDA ought to be adopted to determinethe true market value ';of the acquired lands in •question. |

¶30Parametersgoverningfixationof marketvalue of acquiredlands i ,! highlightedby ApexCourtin its decisionrepoijledas P. RamReddyand Ors. V. Lan^ Acquisition Officer Hyderabad'-Urban Development AuthontyHyderabadandOrs., 1995 (2) SCb 305 are as under:-• "12. However; in eitherofthe said cask whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedby saleofplots in awelldevelopedlayoutin tKe neighborhood lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ^ l.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' . lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur : ^ exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds rightly discarded by the ane, by-lane, etc., therefore, thereof, this sale exemplar m

¶31or whetherit he the determinationofthe,,marketvahieofthe acquiredland with huUdingpotentihWywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingphisin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighlJbrhood,it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out \vhat will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, rehedupon by anyoftheparties,with,referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthe publicationof the preliminarynotifipqtionunder Section of the Act Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetched y he sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands^ becomes available, hen what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of •he acquiredland with reference to\tfie relevantdate of publicationunderSection4(1) oftheU Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasputandincreaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentmtyascertainedon thk hpsisofevidenceto oe made available in that regard U'small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the m.arket value of the landfound out accordingto its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving\increasedvalue for such buildingpotentiality,arises only when there is\o evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in 'thS neighborhoodof he acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionof^rateof land chargedby -, theDDA afteracquiringthe agrioulturallandsldevelopingthe sa,ne.and ti-ansfernngperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratos/Pre-DeterminedRates in deterntiningthe market value of the adjoining undevelopedfreehold lands. Following^the dietum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench ofthis Courtip JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushil Kuma. (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates nna tite . developedlands as beihg"o,relevantfor assebslngthe marketvalueof ! PP NO. 111/2010&connected/appealsofVillagePochanpur I j the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find that the Reference-Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA ratesfor allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DetemiinedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallaiidsin question. I

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is iwhetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue ofthe land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland.othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argifad by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounselfor the respondent/dro'ss-objectorthat even ifthe escalation at the compoundedrate of 10% year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for Notification for development of Dwarlca\Phase-I and the instant i Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhasfe-II,stillthe pricefixed by the LandAcquisitionCollectoris morethaiithe aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enliancementgranted by the Reference Court is unjustified. ! f

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentc'f the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5.3^e9,rsand beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring'land. What may be a lehablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew;years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is lal-g|r.In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDv/arkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IILs ofsixteeriyearsandtherefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market valuej% providing appropriate per annum is taken from the the period intervening the LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan 1-A.App.No. 1-11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previqusyears. I

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seijior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged th£ granted escalation @ 12% per annum, coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil escalation @ 10% per annum. After ha^ ciushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on accountof higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted'by the ReferenceCourt @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%) per annum.In this viewof the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respo'ndentare dismissed.'

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether .^doption of Government's mmimumprice ofthe agriculturalland inII>eiiai,by the ReferenceCourt IS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the . ReferenceCourt fi-om the date of fixationofJhe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. Notificationmthe instantappeals deservesto be further increasedor not. • ; .

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimuii rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by the learnedpounsel for:appellantsbecausethejacqukedland had ceasedto be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 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 -t |the Reference Court has •which is unwarranted as a Kumar (Supra), has granted drig perused the decision in 1'April, 2000 till the date of AApp, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan l.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I i. I •5.- i: presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beasheavilyrelieduponby the ai^ptellantsdisclosethafthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of^^he Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired'lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein pricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their us2;;post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laidtheirhands on o-;h|rsale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrel^ upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance . of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)withouli leading any evidence to establishthat.thequalityand potentialityofthesale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpir^and the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewiththe acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired lan|d with the sale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot|bi treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances.Therefore, in view of the £,fore-refen-eddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialievdopmentCorporation ri?57Z)C;XSupra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light,of the minimum'price fixed by the Governmentfo| the agriculturalland in Delhi, which -generally factors in the ri^elof;price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that tlierfe is agap betweenwhat AApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur -- would be expectedto be the marketgro^h and what the market had actuallygrown,Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld ^ . 'v to be reasonable basis for assessingthe landsin JaiSmgk'(Sj^pra)as well as in SiishilKumar(Supra)andIfmd no reasonto take adifferentviewthanth^o|e whichhad beentakenby coordinateBench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supva.)andSiishilKumar(Supra). | • ' j

¶38This Court is ofthe consideredview that tlie ReferenceCourt in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan lias nglitly relied upon the Government'smipiinum price for agricultural lands in Delhito fix tlie marketvalueoftl^e acquiredlandsin question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand tlie situation ofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfmd thatthe aspectofhiglierpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthk forAirport,Indian:Oil and BharatPetroleumDepots smd of Railwayilitie passing through'Village Bharthaland there.beinga 100 meters vi'de road starting from NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,Pai-iIandPartII, dividingtlie acquired lands in two portions, and there! being Farm Houses mthe vicinityoftlie acquiredlands has somehovymissed the attentionoftlie ReferenceCourt.In'theconsideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aforesaid:locationaladvantages,the acqmre|likds in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingiitvlciiiityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis:Courtto grant 10% increlseover and above^market value of tlie acquired lands as assessed liy the Reference Couit on accountof the higherbuildingpotentiality|n the acquiredlands is the lAApp.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ^ LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ! market value of the acquired / - •ff settled legal position aptly highlightedby the: Apext Court in Mirza I NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SGC 238, inthesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland beii^g'usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearj^uture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had.a • buildingpotentialityandproceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality." ' i ' • !

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would lop veiy difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of|he fact that exactnesscan never be achievedin the matters of asses^^g fair compensation,it is bioadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whicihpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying ihqs Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for compudngthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no special•:-eatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with' their counter-parts,i.e., appellaiitsiof Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan.However,while relyingjupon the decisionin Sushil Kumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10%iin'creaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedbythe ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages piovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding:10% increaseover-and abovethe majrketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto vjillageBharthal and Village Bijwasan:Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal' LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • . : J'" ^ the appellants of'Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthese threevillagesin questionis determined@1?16,50,000/-per^tSS^Srthe Catcgoiy 'A' land; and @ 4,69,600/-per for the Category lands in question. 1^-1^

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in t^ie compensation'awarded, statutor}^benefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere ^s adelay in filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the;enhancedcompensationshall be paid.Theseappellantswouldbe entitled!to proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid tenns with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,if any, depositedby General ofthis Court,to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets I be accordinglyprepared. ! January 06, 2012 pkb n eitherside with the Registrar C (SUNIL GAUR) .TiHi V.iW fit" 'I. ^ • l7\.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bliarthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan • LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur f IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT,NEW DELHI • . + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRS™a , Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaaii,Mr.R.S..Verma,Mr.Jitin• ' Tewathia,Advocates ! ' Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. ]\^.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate •Mr.N.S.NegiandJvIr.lj.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.koutray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiaiidMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor ^ respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) ^ Mr.SudhanshuTomar,|^;dvocatefbr• ;Mr.R.S.Tomar. ; •• I •Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr^sjlCSolankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. . ' Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith • Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.ilohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocatesfor LAC/Uqi ' ,^-AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.3ethi,Ms. AmitaSingh . Sharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand K.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: i HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUJ^ % order' i '

12.01.2012 I ^;AbbLNo^2/2012 or • This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof6"^ January,2012. CoBBsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Pagel r .0 ofthe application.,Advancecopy ofthis a givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typogiaphicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6^^ January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensatiorias^sessedis 'perbigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not;disputedby learned counselappealingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis ^plicationhas alreadybeen allowedand it isorderedthatthe reference no: 40 of LA.App^No. 1195/2008be read sis 'per acre'. Nec^sary correctionsbe carriedoutforthwith. | ; • . I , In viewofthb aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedqf JANUARY 12,2012 .pkb tog'perbigha'in par^raph ^ LA.App.No.1195/2008 ">ir

\ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 82/2012 SUDHA MEHTA Appellant Through: Mr. S.K.Rout, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through; Mr. SanjayKumarPathak,Advocatefor R-l/UOI Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR