Union of India & Anr v. Gyani

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No.1195/2008,titled as 'RanbirSharma vs. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb -(S^nS^AUR) JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November. 1.8, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP. 1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RAI^IR SHARMA Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai 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 M Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlav^at, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate • - Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus ^ UNIONOF INDIA&ANR., Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao vTadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Vermaj Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA LA.APP.412/2008& CM.Np.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.452/2008; LA.APP.453/2d08;LA.APP.688/2008«fe CM.No.5990/2010(Cross-Objections),' LA.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; U.App. No. 115)5/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppeals ofVillageBIjwasan IA.App. No. 111/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pagg j ^9 ^ CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008-TMN finmno^& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross^Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& LM.No.61I/20G9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP775/2008-LA APP 77^^/9008-LA.APP.777/2008;LA.APP.782/2008& CM.No.940/To'9 CMNo^6lS9^^r'^"'^nK^ LA.APP.785/2008;LA.APP.798/2008& ^.No^l 5/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.799/2008 & CM No 931/2009 LA.APP^05/2008;LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008& C^M.NoJ795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.8,14/2008& CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP819/2008-LA APP 890/9008. LA.APP.830/2008;,LA.APP.832/2008; L^APP.sSs: LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV CMNo709atim' LA.APP.915/2008;LA.APP.951/2008 & L-M.No.709/2009 CCross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008-TA APP Q7-^/7nn»- ^ CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections')-LA APP 975/2008' LA.APR976/2008;LA.APP.978/2008;LA.APP.986U8& ClSos'S (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.17340/2008' ^ T LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) ^ ^ CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1046/2008 ®'^^^2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Obiections) t^A.APP.1049/2008& CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008 IAAPP 1053?008t (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008 CM No 1766/2009 rr (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1.054/2008& CMNo 752/9mi LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.No^52/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 T L^-APP-10,59/2008& CM.No.17259/2008(Cross-ObiectionsV /a l ^ CM;No.546/2009(Cross-Objections)' 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Obiections)' 7LA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Obiectionsv' ^ CM.No.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086/2008 & CM^o.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA APP 1095/2008• CMr3S'.r (Cross-Objections);LA.APp'n^8/2^ « CM No1s2S9000 LA.APP.1109/2008;LA.APP.1110/2008& * rMNois^So LA.APP.llll/2008;LA.APP.1112^008& (:M.NoJ831/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1113/2008& CM.No3826/2009 TA^A^D ^^-^PP-1115/2008;LA.APP.1116/2008;LA.APP.1121/2008 [""a'^du!!?a/ LA.APP.1129/2008 &. CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Obiectionsl LA.APP.1130/2008;LA.APP.1131/2008& CMNo 566/2009 (Cross Obiprt' ^ LA.APP.1133/2008;LA.APP.1135/2008&CMNo74S9 ^ CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections)-LA APP ImSs Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1159/2008; LA.APP.1161/2008-LAAPP 1166/?oo8 piiisiiiss LA.APP.,184/2008;LA.APP.1,85^008;LA.APP.m™&'Xo^&^^ -A.App.Nc. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur. Page 2 of 29., W I % (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.l193/2008; LA.APP.l194/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008;LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP.l198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP.1223/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(CrossrObjections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008;LA.APP.1281/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP,33/2009;• LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections' LA.APP.l08/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP,459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP.l177/2008;LA.APP.'1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/1,3417dated 13.12.2000 issued under.Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA. APP.201/2009 CM.No. 7027/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009 LA.APP.227/2009;LA.APP.230/2009& CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; 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.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 ^ LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEWNDERKUMAR Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal l.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 LAAPP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ,AEE. 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 innm. LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP.75/2010& C.M.No.964/2011(Cross-objections) Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates . forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routi-ay,Advocatesin 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.SetJi, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.^ lMpp. .A.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 LA.APP. LAAPP. 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 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10O0)96-L&B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No.. 28/2002-2003,"VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND I.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal W.App. No. 29.4/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No.'111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • page/tofag "7 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJRAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33,36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LAApp.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNIONOF INDIA& ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. 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. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011' - 536/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 la'.app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP, 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 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, 156/2010 215/2010 •250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010

918./2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 I.A.APP.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal A.App. ho. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBliwasan IAApp.no. ni/2010a connectedAppealscfVillagepZnp.r Pages of 29 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

06.01.2012

¶1Since the groundson which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learnedcounsel 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 beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhij 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 Estates includingvillages in question, ^ i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasan^nd Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstoodacquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward 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'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwiththe assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App, No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur agncultumllands, appellantshad soughtreferenceunder Section 18 of theLandAc,UisitionAct. 1894and the ReferenceCourtvideimpugned judgmenthad enhancedcompensation@riS.OO lacs per acre for the appellants'acquiredtod in Block 'A' and@?13.36lacs per acre for f^r - Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhavebeendismissed.

¶5In theseappeals,furtherenhancementofcompensationsoughtby the appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis a. th.rateofRupees mylacsperacre,whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhavesought oompensattonat the rateofRupeesThirtylacsperacre by relyingupon ^ the precedents in the shape of decisions in Engineer KarnauuaHousin,BoarUv. La"aAcquisitionOfficer, Gattagan, ^'^^^•'SubhRamandOrsvs.StateofHaryanaandAnr., 0) 1see 444; Sangunthala(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)&Qrs.,(2010)3SCG 661-,RanvirSingh andAnr, vs. UnionofIndiaAIR 2005 SC 3467;ChindhaFakiraPatil mthroughLRs vs. The SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer,Jalgaon. 2011(2)SCALE321; JaiLai vs. UnionofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; ^ RamaNand(sincedeceased)throughLRs vs. UnionofIndia Anr', 2002 (65) DRJ 1(DB); Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State ofPunjab&Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. StateofMaharashtra.(2009) 11 see 171; Alma Singh (Dead) throughLRs and Ors vs. Slate of Haryana&Anr, (2008)2SCC 568; W.P.(C)No. 4143/2003titledas Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha&Ors. decidedon 26.03.2010-SpecialLan^AcquisitionOfficer&Anr vs. M.K. Rafu,Saheb,(2011)' see lUvThakarslbhaiDevjibhalandors vs. ExecutiveEngineer lAApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' -X App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Oujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424 State Industrial '^^^'oP>»entCorpomthn,mO)nSCC\\15-,RisalSmgh& Ors Vs UnionofIndia&Anr.,2006(89)DRJ 527(DB);LaiChandn. Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and NaturalGas CorporationLtd vs. RamesHbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecifTehsildar (UndAcquisition)andAnr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh •J DattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapd Mehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia&Anr ^ 176(2011)DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vl Delhi DevelopmentAuthority& Anr., decided on 24.04,2008;Om Prakash(dead)byLSsandOrsvs. UnionofIndia,(2004)10 SCC627; Satpal& Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APR No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union »/'decidedon

26.09,2011;XA. AFP, No,59/2007titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India,decidedon 07,06,2011;andBhuleRam vs. UnionofIndia 2010

(170) DLT 371. s 6, On the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it p was urged by Mr,B,S,Maan,learnedarguingcounselfor the appellants thatthe locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturallandhas to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin viewthe developmentin the area overaperiodof timeandthe samecannotbe limitedto the nearfuturealone,

¶7It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passesthroughthe land ofVillageBharfhal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternsideofthe railwaylineis theIGI Airport,NewDelhi LA.App. No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ..A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur W and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarkaSub-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 developedFarm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanldlearnedcounselfor the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentofDwarkaPhase-Iand the landson the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siraswere also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks jzzraj/mapto highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶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 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 ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24^'' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.SJC.Rout,learned counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama W.App. No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page9of29 Reddid Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin XJdho Bass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin 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 authoritiesdo notputthe land to any use, it wouldnot mean that there is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight ^ that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, 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 Coiirtin AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa andAm., (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 ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueof the acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is U.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • Page10 of 29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO ratesofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or .on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates(PDRs)as referredtoabove.

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

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition NoJ9012 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 15years 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 QovernmentofNationalCapital 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 producedbeforethe trialCourtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin lV\,App, IMo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur case the averagesaleprice is lower. Further in Aniana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held'that the highest of the exemplars and not by averagingof different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicatinguponcompensationupona certanland. fi Relied upon judgment dated' 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value of the subject landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis much higherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockAand ^13,36,000in BlockB in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court includingin Subh Ram v^. State of Haryana 2010(1) see 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No 1 f. framedon 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 boundariesofDelhi State The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinentto 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 ^ and the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was electedfrom there. No Panchayatelections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vj. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin 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&connsctedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ...J T\ amtionedsimilarlysituatedlandas commercialblocks at the rate ofabout ^2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthesubjectlandis even lowerthan the pre-determmedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2 jor similarly situated land. If^ '"to thepossibilityofchangeof eof he landalthoughthe landwas acquiredfor developmmt purposes of Dwarka Phase II It is Bhmhal w^ changedand these areas ceased to be oTDdhrsttT """^ boundaries I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24 101994 although they clearly establish the commercial Ta)' ^""Smthalav. Tahsildar t 1 1 I thepurposefor wic and is acquired is a relevantfactor While determiningvalue of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhasgotbuildingpotentialityto be used .for buildingpurposes in immediateor in nearfuture meds to be considered. #m) ne presenceofanumber ofbuildingson the lands S u occupied by the buildingsare to he treatedas house sites. The lands m ^Ztf ofputting up residential wf Y 1 considered.as house site, the adjoininglands have the potentialof beingputin betteruseas housesitesin thenearfuture.

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No 347/2009,the factualdetailshave been providedwithaprayerthat the appellantsofthis appeal be treatedat par withthe eo-appellantsofthe Otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof • pp. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 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 ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DetemiinedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area are relevantto determinethe market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesrelieduponby 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 theseappeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of 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 ofthe purchaserand other factorsnamely,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.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat sharp increase in piice in a shortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increase are explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan • LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur and the purchaseras no prudentpersonhaving knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendinthe marketwouldpay such a higherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.iThus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Court in SushilKumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.SanjayPoddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1®' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired 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 deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deservesto be broughtin line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17Afler consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the'decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe true marketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto awilling LA.App. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAAop. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lAApp.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage,Pochanpur Page15 of29 \ seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealmg with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court Vdho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:-

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

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the ^ buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as thecasemay be;

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryirripedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence, of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe 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 occupiersof buildings,if builton the acquired land; and

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

¶18The potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large numberoffactors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for W.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan W.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • pagei6of29 which fte lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent to so.ue extent. It^has been so observedby the Apex Court in vmas supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevantfactorsfor determination ompensationfor acquiredlands,it has!beenheld by the Apex Court upoTr --P'arsofsmallpiecesoflandrelied jn by the appellantscouldnot beagroundto discardthemespecially exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwerenotavailable. upon ^ I ri: ; r in location, situationor potentiality,of the villages, which are . .larly situatedhaving similaradvantageavailableto them even as regards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands-and the acquiredland.

¶20»-Va well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of provingthe true marketvalueofthe acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for aparticularpmpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant.For this proposition,the decision of the ApexCourtm&a"TanOon(Supra)can berefeiredto withadvantage. . Apex Courtin VaUfyammal(Supra),whiletakingnoteofthe fact that d.e acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colony,educationalmstitutions.hospitals,etc.,hadheldthatdeduction 0towards developmerncharges was improper. The pertinent •observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjuniMoluDes.ai(Supra) deserveattention,whichare as under:- 1J>.APP a i ™''e* pp. »o, Ul/2010S, tonnsctedApp,.|sofVilI.e. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highestofthe exemplars,which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. Where howeverthere are several sales ofsimilarlandswhosepricesrangein a narrowbandwidth, the average thereofcan be taken, as representing the marketprice. But where the values disclosedin respectof two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are with referenceto dissimilarlands or that the lower value sale is on accountofunder-valuation or otherpricedepressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to."

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note ofthe clinchingobservations pertainingto determinationoffair marketrate ofacquiredlands made ^ by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), Which are as follows:- "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactionsin respectof the land under acquisitionor 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 betweena willingvendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreedbetweenreasonableprudentpersons actingin the normalmarketconditionsare the real basis to determine the market value. " ^ 23. Principlesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC)(Supra),are as under:- Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situationofthe land, nature ofdevelopmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area,,and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. l-A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IVy.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • / %) 0« the otherhand, in urbanorsemi-urbanareas,wherethe developmentISfast^, where the demandfor land is high and where there is eonstruetionactivity all around, the escalationin marketprice is at a much higher rate as comparedto ruralareas.In somepocketsin bigcities,'due rapid development and high demandfor land, the escalationsin prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreperyear, duringthe nineties.On theotherextreme in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any ihrven!"^' Stagnated f yearsor rosemarginallyatanominalrateof1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban LIZ ""i "ateoflands in the rural a eas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about10% to 15%per annum onl^nv^^Tu'v youldatbestbe onfyaroundMfofit, thatis about5% to 7.5%perannum. rti , °( T '•« the ^vSlT ofclearandspecific ^'dencerelatingto increase in prices. Where there are Z '•7"™-.^°'' " higherrate ofincrease,or an^ specific evidence relating to the actual increase in ThTsame^" °PP"^d dependupon IZT!'"''°f determiningthe marketvalue by providingappropriateescalationover the provedmarketvalueofnearbylands inpreviousyears (as-if evidenced.bysale transactionsor acquisition),where there IS no evidenceofany contemporaneoussaletransactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelandsin theneighbourhoodThe said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale by onlyafew years, thatis uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond fand ZZ T"" ^neighbouring land What may he areliablestandardifthe gap is onlya ZereT' unreliablestandard r^aZ Lf7 determiningthe arket^value ofa land acquired in 1992, adopting the nnua increase method with reference to a sale or LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan w.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur * '"creasemay itselfund,>rc" ^ o/a««8M/

¶24Th,.C.« " "w" «. I.,,/^™.,c»,««»,OTjo ,s »°''«.'•«,«..d. b, .1,4 ig5?i£H= Sss—sS

¶25IMspmedly. i" these appeals sale exemplar, in and around acqu,red.land of Village Bharthal. Village Bijwasanof the period in quest,onare not availableand the soUtar,sale exenrplarstronglyrelied •. 7 •' • ««»"•I-.»«., a. a purchased the agriculturalland in Village Poehanpurat aprice whichvanedfrom?52 lacsto ^62 lacsperacre ,

¶26Whetl^eraforesaidSaleDeeds(Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)which 2 b-oallybetweenone set ofco-o™,ersand MdkaS.amiSatsan, -nrespectofthe compactblock.oflandmeasuring18 Bighasand6 IZ'T.'" ~ &connectedAppealsofVillagePoehanpur % (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the samemarketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establishthe advantagesattached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question.The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural,lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaidsale exemplarsbeen 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., Swami Satsang, Beas who had 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 Mamurpurwas discardedwhileholdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters,though the land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has comein evidence thatthe acquiredlandswere beingusedfor agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus; it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing 1-A.App.No. 1195/2008.&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App.No. Ul/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ?1,76,55,172,41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^^ January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, noA^ it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to deteraiine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination ofthe market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tJaeJisi^hborhood LA.App.No. ligfj/ZOOS&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal \ LA.App. No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan \ LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page22 of29

¶31orwhetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood,it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out what will he the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplotsin the layouts, reliedupon by anyoftheparties,withreferenceto theprice whichtheplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section ofthe 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 wasputandincreaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto he made available in that regard Asmall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th ofthe market value of the landfound out accordingto its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving increasedvaluefor such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such,for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " In view of the difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land chargedby -— the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same,and transferringperpetual leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in La/ Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum ofLai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands'asbeingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, Ifind that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA ratesfor aliotmenfofdevelopedlandor the DDAsPre-DeterminedRates fof alternateallotmentsfor fixingthe marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is ^vKetherprogressiveincrease methodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalueofthe landmquestionwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaiand othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.SanjayPoddar, learnedseniorcounselfor the respondent/cross-objectorthat evenifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per amium is tien from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period interveningthe Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthepricefixedby theLandAcquisitionCollectoris morethanthe aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancementgranted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in viewofthedictumof the Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra),cautioningthe Courtsto adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredlandonly when the gap is of4-5 yearsand beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to aneighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap isofonlyofafewyears,maybecomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger.In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIIS ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,itwouldbeunsafeto adoptthe mode of detennining the market value by providing appropriate W.App,"..uw","sC0""..ttdApp"k",Vi,,4.piZp", j escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previousyears.

¶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 SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @ 12% perannum cannotbe reducedto 10% perannum.Inthisviewof 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 fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. 1'^ April, 2000 till the date of ^ Notificationin the instantappeals deservesto be further increased-or not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notifi-cationin question has been assailed by the learnedcounsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue ofNotificationof 24^'^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban.It is tnre-thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbutthat by itselfis not sufficientto ITV.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof-VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 1H/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page25 of29 p-su^e that a,e acquired lands had gained potentialityfor being Vita aspectoftherebetngany deve,op",en.in and aroundthe acquiredlands Lrr ? ofthe saidlandswas foragriculturalputpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the rrtL" Land AcquisitionAct,

¶4acquiredlands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been qu red lands upon change of their use post the year 1994 then appellantscouldhavelaidtheirhandson othersaleinstancesin the area Ir"" Vllage Samalkha(Ex.PW-I/Il) without leading any evidence to exemplars Of. Villa S Tw Po'^hanpurand the sale exemplarof andTr - --ParaMewiththeacquiredlands a .0 ^e contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instanceof Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-I/11) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to granthighercompensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid -le .nuances.Therefore,in view of the afore-refe.eddictum of the mwc (Supra),uniformrateofcompensationdeservesto be awarded or the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light ofthe « pnce fixed by the Governmentfor the agricultu.1land in Oelhi, which feetors in the rise of price due to higher p—».«« "^ la.aSJ;Z'.m/imTcorTT nwoiosc,""e»^Cto1»1sp'X".r would be expectedto be the marketgrowth and what the tnarke.had actuallygrown,Government'sminimumagricultt"-alpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe marketvalueofthe acquired andsm.toSmgh(Sj.pra)as well as inSushUKumar(Supra)andIfind no reasonto takeadifferentviewthantheone whichhad beentakenby coordmateBench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Singh (Supra)and (Supra).

¶38This Courtis ofthe consideredview that the ReferenceCourtin Ae mtters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has nghtly rehed upon the Govenunent'sminimum price for agricultural andsmDelhito fix themarketvalueofthe acquiredlandsin question FmdmgoftheReferenceCourtiamatterofVillageBharthalandVillage ywasan,oftherebeingno evidencethatthepotentialandthe situation ofthe acqmredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borneout from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and , ara^PetroleumDepots wd of Railwayline passingthroughVillage BhartHal and there beinga100 meters vide road starting from NH-S fromShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII. dividingthe acquiredlands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses;in the vicinityofthe acquiredlands has somehowmissedthe attentionofthe ReferenceCourt.In the consideredopinionofthis Court,on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlandsin question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10o/«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. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharth,! NO.2S«2010Sco"ne«App" IspSSCJ •' •App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 27 of 29-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 acquired land had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increaseinprice attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesof the instant cases,whichpersuadesme to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no special featuresto treat the acquired lands differeritlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in $mhil Kumai^(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover.andabovethe market value of the acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourt in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providinga higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe market value assessedby the Reference Court in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpuratpar with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appeals of LA.App, No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur fO, the appellants of Village Pochanpur are alto allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands ofthese threevillagesin questionis determined@?i6,50,000/-per^i^fforthe Category'A' land and@?14,69,6Q0/-per b^forthe Catefc;^'-landsin question. \\-

¶41On the aforesaid enhancementin the compensationawarded, statutorybenefitsas perthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explamediii the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor theperiodwherethereis adelayin filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno interestontheenhancedcompensationshall be paid.Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The abovecaptionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof mthe aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany,depositedby eithersidewiththe.Registrar Generalofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt.Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. . -y January 06, 2012 pkb I.A.App,No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal iA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVlllageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (' -^SXJNILGAUR) JUDGE po4- ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 Appellant RANBIR SHARMA Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S. Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.KRoutray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UO) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus ... Respondents UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDERR

12.01.20112 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction) This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6h January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 ofthe appHcation.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 ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthv/ith. © ^ aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof |s ^ rUNILGAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 12,2012 pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

W y * % + VK IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 750/2010 Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 . UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. GYANI versus Respondent Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38,41-46, 49, 50-69, 73,75, 76) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR