Tara Nath Roy v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.0L2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb J^^TTGAUR) TTT JUDGE J ^ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 1.8, 2011 Pronounced on: Januarv 06, 2012 (GRID-A) -I LA.APP.1195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash,Ms.Smita Maan,Mr.R.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia,Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.RoutandMr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Ra-jeshYadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates IV'Ir.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LACAJOI Mr.AjayVerma, Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, N4r.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA LA.APP.412/2008 & CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.452/2008: LA.APP.453/2008; LA.APP.688/2008 & CM.No.5990/2010 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.697/2008 & CM.No.433/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.701/2008 & CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; U.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan iA.App. No.111/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur Page1 of 29 n LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008;LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008-LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008-LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM No 779/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections)- LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008;LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008-LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA APP 975/2008" LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM No 572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM No 17340/2008 T| (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1032/2008 CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP1046/2008 CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1049/2008& CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008 LA.APP.1051/2008& CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008 ^ CM.No.416/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008& CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM No 1557/2011 \ LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009(Cross-Objections)- ' LA.APP.1074/2008& CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections),' T^a'app LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); p CM.No.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086/2008 ^ CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No619/2009 Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008• ^ CM.No.441/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l111/2008;LA.APP.1112/2008& CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1113/2008 & CM No 3826/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l115/2008; LA.APP.l116/2008; LA.APP 1121/2008 ^^APP LA.APP.1129/2008&CM.No.550/200'9(Cross-Ob^ ['^APP LA.APP.1131/2008& CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections) T^^tpp ^ CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections) Ta'appl 't ^283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l140/2008 ' la.APP.1157/2008;LA.APP.1158/2008& CM.No7774/2009 Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP1166/2008 IA (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.ll'S ' LA.APP.l171/2008;LA.APP.1172/2008;LA.APP.1173/2008 LA.APP.1175/2008:LA.APP.1178/2008;LA.APP1179/2008-LA APP 1181/9008 LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.NoWsS "rts 0^1 LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.l185/2008; LA.APP.1186/2008&CM.No.7013/2009 LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur % LA.APP.1190/20.P8;LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.1195/2008;LA.APP.1197/2008 CM.No.693'5/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP1200/2008 LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP1211/2008 CM No ^'^23/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CMNoSmS?^ la.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& TA"a^d (^^^oss-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008" ^ LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008"LA APP 1279/2008-LA.APP.1280/2008;LA.APP.1281/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008" LA APP ."cSS.. HsB iii [is Es Hi Ess (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP245/2009" LA APP94^^ •lilil (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/I3417dated 13.12.2000 Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No 26/2002-2003dated23.10,2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08. ?.()11 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 I la.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEVENDERKUMAR . ,, ™ , . Appellant Through; Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal I.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Advocates • , Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (inR-2-14,38, 41-46, 49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: ^ir.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 11/2010 53/2010 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 49/2010 54/2010 59/2010 223/2010 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 725/2010 731/2010 764/2010 364/2010 99/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) 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 226/2010 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 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,'Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND lA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhal W.App. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan lA.App. No.111/2010 a connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur % + (GRID-C) Resei-ved on: December 18. 20J1 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJRAMANDORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29,30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC A^r.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. . 111/2010 . 160/2010 . 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/201 r 536/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 154/2010 . 165/2010 .248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 . 156/2010 .215/2010 . 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. No. 119.^2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

06.01.2012

¶1Since-the groundson which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofbythis commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13'^ December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue'Estatesincludingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e.. Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@ ^13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @ ^12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentof marketvalue oftheiracquired LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page6of29 \t5 agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 md the ReferenceCourtvide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' and @^13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave beendismissed.

¶5In these appeals,furtherenhancementof compensationsoughtby the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon 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 Dessai vs. State of Goa and Am.,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Am.,

(2010) 1 sec 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Am, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Am., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Am, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land'Acquisition Officer & Am vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, l-A.App.No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appealsof VillagePochanpur Page7 of29 V) Gujarat and Am., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 115,RisalSingh & Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority,

(2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India,

(1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

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

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar, counsel for appellants that Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes througti 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 LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanldlearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks ^-zz/m/mapto highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurgedby 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 illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24'*" October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama LA.App. No. 1X95/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page9of29 Reddi & Ors, vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho I>ass vs. State of Haryana tS: Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance 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 ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars caimot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMain Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageof sale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandispatentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur pg jq sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyonthe basis ofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

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

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

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section5 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of 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,2010(3)SCC661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. . e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trialCourtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010a connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur c_> case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCO 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 adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certanland. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject land while ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis much higherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockA and ^13,36,000 in BlockB in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) see 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No.l framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. The masterplan and Notificationsof Government for land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinent to mentionthat the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74^^ amendment of the ConstitutionofIndia, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was electedfrom there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effecton the price that a willing purchaser wouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur p of29 \L auctionedsimilarlysituatedland as commercialblocks at the rate ofabout ^2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe subjectland is even lower than the • pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthepossibilityofchangeof the use ofthe landalthoughthe landwas acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II It is reiteratedthat the land use of VillageDhoolSiras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthe saidland In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010)3see 661 it was heldthatthepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhasgot buildingpotentialityto be used jor buildingpurposes in immediate or in nearfuture needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treatedas house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose ofputting up residential quarters.As aportionofthe landis beingconsideredas house site, the adjoininglands have the potentialof beingputin betteruse as housesitesin thenearfuture."

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual detailshave been providedwith aprayerthat the appellantsofthis appeal be treatedat par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplemetttingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urgedby IVIr.AnaiidYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof W.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur m urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238;KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union of India Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area are relevantto determinethe market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correctmarket value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence for determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connectedwith the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand otherfactorsnamely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SiishilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat sharpincrease in price in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppeal.?of VillagePochanpur ' Page 14of29 and the purchaser as no prudent person having loiowledge of the usual .prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/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 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 Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the ReferenceCourtwhiletalcinginto considerationthe 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.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugnedjudgment, the evidenceon record and the-decisions cited, what emerges is that the tme market value of the comparablelandis the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto a willing LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page15of29 r r)P seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionofpotentialvalue ofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words

(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city^.or the town or villagewhich had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitability^ofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as the case may be;

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput upon that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityorcloseproximityofthe acquiredland;

(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 acquired land; and

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

¶18The potentialityoflandfor the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurpos'esdependsupon a large numberoffactors. For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. IMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash(supra).While reiteratingthe relevantfactors for determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsmall piecesofland relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepiecesof landwerenot available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011)7 SCC

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfromthe decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similailysituated having 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 of law that the burden of provingthe true market value of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex CourtinKiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage.

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had heldthat deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserve attention, which are as under;- lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars,which is a bonafide 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 market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

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

¶23Principles 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 four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability^ of land for development in the area, and the demand for land m the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l7\.App,No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur 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 somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreper year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per .annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in. market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is 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 sp)ecific 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 of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved marketvalue of nearby lands inpreviousyears (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidefice ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandard,if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe m.arket-valueof a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or \ LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page19 of 29 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the \ate' of annual increase may itselfundergodrastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurts inprices affectingthe very,standard ofincrease."

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods.Whatwas saidbythe Apex CourtinHSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "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 reference to previous status or situation should be avoided anda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe samenotification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price whichvariedfrom ^52 lacsto^62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds LA.App. No. H95/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 'V ^ (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its pricevariesfrom?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the samemarketprice;It was dependentuponthe natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land irx question,is lacldng.Therefore,thesesaleexemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question.The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/IO)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeofthe aforesaidsale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay suchahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas'whohad purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25" March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and mthe aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamuipurwas discardedwhileholdingthat the same camiotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters,though the land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence thatthe acquiredlandswere beingusedfor agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomesevidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.APP. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur t marketprice of the land in questionwould pay such a high price unless and until such purchaseis meantfor specialconsiderationand so, in the consideredopinion 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.

¶28So far as the sale exemplarof Village Samalldia(Ex.PW-1/11) reliedupon bythe appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"^ January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11)was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11)vendorhad soldnot onlythe landbut the structurethereon includingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,lane, by-lane,etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be consideredas to whetheradoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixationof market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby saleofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin t]ae fTei^hborhood LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal \ LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pggg22 of29 / or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto t epricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out what will be the price Jetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, rehedupon by any oftheparties,M'ithreferenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section (Jy* o/ the Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetched by the sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevantdate of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasputand increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard Asmall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th ofthe market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving increasedvalue for such bujldingpotentialityarises only when there is no evi ence ofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate W' ' Vfarmedin the

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionofrate ofland chargedby the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same,and transferringperpetual leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjomtng undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of L"l Chand(Supra),acoordinateBenchofthis Court in JaiSingh (Supra) and Sum Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua tire developedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueof pp. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA ratesfor allotmentofdevelopedlandor the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken 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 Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the LandAcquisitionCollectoris morethanthe aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by.the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' ' 0^ escalationoverthe marketvalueofthenearbylandofthepreviousyears.

¶34Mr.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 coordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted , escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum.Inthis viewof the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deservesto be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption,of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland 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 changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur P 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 exemplarsof Radha Swami. Satsang,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been mcreasemprice due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewiththe acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances.Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which -generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what W.APP. No. 119y2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal w'in' ^ connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur would be expectedto be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in JaiSingh (Sjapra)as well as in SushilKumar(Supra)andIfind no reasonto take a differentview than the one whichhad beentaken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).

¶38This Court is of the consideredview that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Govermnent'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question. Iindingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situation ofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in closevicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passingthroughVillage Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIandPartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityofthe acquiredlands has somehowmissedthe attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court,on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseoverand abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the LA App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur settled legal position aptly highlightedby the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increaseinprice attributable to such buildingpotentiality. "

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto provide a definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme totreatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decisionin Sushil Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto VillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof LA.App. No. n95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ Page28of29 , 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 higimfor the Category'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per ^^forthe Category'B' landsin question. |\''

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgmient reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is a delay in filing the appeal, for whichperiodof delayno interestonthe enhancedcompensationshall be paid. These appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terais with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,if any, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. January 06, 2012 pkb LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsof,VillagePochanpur C C (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE .is-^jIT-Poi ; ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate A4r.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) agj Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefor Mr.R.S. Tomar. Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand ! Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocates versus UNIONOF TO&ANR. Respondents Through. Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. I CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M. Annl. Nn. 752/2012(Tnr Ihis IS an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof6"" January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Pagel / / 0:> ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6* January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be earned out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12,2012 pkb -"°^^?GAUR) JUDGE Page 2

% + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 657/2010 TARANATHROY Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 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 Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR