Union of India & DDA v. Bhagwan Singh & Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 / For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Am.'. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb riL GAUR) JUDGE y 0 % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR 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 Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azafn Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla., Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thalchur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Adyocaies for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, ]S4i-.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma. Advocate for DDA LA.APP.412/2008 & CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.452/2008; LA.APP.453/20G8;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; lA.App. N(i, ].iy5/2008 & connected Appealsof Village Bharthal IA.App. IMn. ?.94/20i0 & connected AppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App.No. 111/?.010S(connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page1of29 LA.APP.77]72008 & 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.No931/2009 (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.APP820/2008-LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP833/2008-LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM No 779/2011 I'A-^PP-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-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 LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections)- r A ^ CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA APP 1046/2008-CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Obiections)' IAAPp"l05?/2008& (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008,' fA APP"1053'2008% ^C^°^s-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008; CM No 176^9000 rr 6/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1.054/2008& CM No 752/20?? LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & ^Vl.NoJ52/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM No 1557/2011 1!aTppS^^ ^•APP-i094/2008; LA.APP.1095/fo08: CM No 3839/2009 (Cross Oh" t w 108/2008& CMN0382S LA.APP.1109/2008;LA.APP.1110/2008& LA.APP.,137/2008& CM No 83/ LA,APPJ170/^008-LAAPP n71/9nnrr^^^^ LA.APP.l168/2008 LA.APP.184/2008UA:APP;"8^S^ATp°if^^^^^ I ^Village Bharthal lAAppNcinS A.App, Nc. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 2 of 29., (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008; LA.APP.l194/2008; LA.APP.l195/2008; LA.APP.l197/2008 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(Cross.Objections);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.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; LA.APP.197/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; , LA.APP.202/2009;LA.APP.203/2009;LA.APP.208/2009& (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009& CM.No970/2011 LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; lTaPP221/2009' LA:APR224/2009;LA.APP.227/2009:LA.APP.230/2009& CM.No.7206/2009 Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA APP 246/2009 •LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009 LA APP 305 2009 LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.447/2009 LAAPP458S LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP48S9 T^ APBfLA.APP.490/2009;LA,APP.491/2009; LA.APP493/2009 LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP503/2009* LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP509/2009" LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.513/2009" LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP.45/2010" LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; LA.APP.1138/2008"' LA.APP.l177/2008;LA.APP.'l201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009' LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP.144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP.199/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA. APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: Decp.mhpr08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 ' LA.APP.294/2010_(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEVENDERKUMAR Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal •A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan 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 (in R-2-14,38, 41-46, 49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. 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. 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; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,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.Selii, 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.AP?. 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 588/201( 725/201 731/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 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. Lj 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 722/2010 (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 I.A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan , LA.App. No.'111/2010Si connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 IA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJRAMANDORS. Through: Appellants A4r.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 LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR T'hrough: 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 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. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. 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 iA.App. No. 1395/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. Wo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 311/2010&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 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. .JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

06.01.2012

¶1Since-the grounds on 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 beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhij commenced with the issuance of Notific.ationof 13'^ December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertainmg to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue.Estates includingvillages in question^ i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby 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).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal • l-A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan iA.App. No. 111/201.0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur agriculturallands, appellantshad soughtreferenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct. 1894and the ReferenceCourtvide itnpugned judgmenthad enhancedcompensation@?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' and @?13.36lacsper acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhavebeendismissed,

¶5In theseappeals,furtherenhancementofcompensationsoughtby the appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at therateofRupees Fiftylacsperacre,whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhavesought compensationat the rate ofRupeesThirtylacs peracre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer KarnamaHousingBoarUrs. LonaAcquisitionOfficer, GaUagan, ors.,(2011)2see246;AnjaniMoluDessaivs. StateofGoaandAnr.

(2010)13SCC710;SubhRamandOrs vs. StateofHaryanaandAm.,

(2010) 1see 444; Sangumhala(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special TehsUdar(LandAcquisition)&Ors.,(2010)3See661;RanvirSingh andAnr, vs. UnionofIndiaAIR 2005 SC 3467; ChindhaFakiraPatil

(D) throughLRs vs. The SpecialLandAcquisitionOffu^er,Jalgaon. 2011(2)SCALE321; JaiLai vs. UnionofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227-RamaNand(sincedeceased)throughLRs vs. UnionofIndia&Anr^ 2002 (65) DRJ I (DB); Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors. 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. StateofPunjab&Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; AvirutshDhavajiNaik vs. StateofMaharashtra(2009) 1>sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) throughLRs and Ors vs. State of Baryana&Anr, (2008)2SCC 568; W.P.(e)No. 4143/2003titledas Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha&Ors. decidedon 26 03 2010-Spec,alLand-AcquisitionOfficer&Anr vs. M.K.RafiqSaheb,(2011)' see 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer IA.APP No inSL pp. NO. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175;RisalSingh& Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia&Anr.,2006(89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs.Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)andAnr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapU Mehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia&Am, 176(2011)DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titledas SwatSingh vi Delhi DevelopmentAuthority& Anr., decided on 24.04.2008;Om Prakash(dead)byLRsandOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004)10 SCC627; Satpal& Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. App! No.656/2008titled as SmhU Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

26.09.2011;LA. APP. No.59/2007titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;andBhuleRam vs. UnionofIndia,2010

(170) DLT 371. • ,

¶6On the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguingcounselfor the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be tu-st understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area overaperiodof timeand thesamecannotbe limitedto the nearfuturealone.

¶7It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Deiht-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passesthrougitthe land ofVillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts ..e.,on tl,e easten,sideofthe railwayline is theIGI Ain,ort.NewDelhi ^•App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 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-Cit}^ Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airportis located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanl|ilearnedcounselfor 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 establishingIndianOilDepotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmqntof DwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siraswere also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/mscpto 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 m 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.S.K.Rout,learned counsel for the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discardedby the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama i«..•App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan U.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • Page s of .29 Reddi& Ors. vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & 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 appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from ?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 Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State ofGoa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale 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 marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶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 determinedlates fixed by the Governmentfor•allotmentof alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is i-A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.Apo. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

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

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 ofthe 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 ^he valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recent case of^ Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land A^qumtionOfficer, CivilApeal No.5475 of2007. The ^on'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin [AApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal • AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan 1^-App.No. 1.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana 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 adjudicatingupon compensationupona certanland. f 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 BlockA and ^13,36,000 in BlockB in violation of the /aw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court includingin Subh Ram v^. State ofHaryana 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 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 Constitutionof India, 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 Panchayatelections 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 directeffecton the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 11.95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur v_ auctionedsimilarlysituatedlandas commercialblocks at the rate ofabout X2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthesubjectlandis even lowerthan the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2 Jor similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthepossibilityofchangeof use ofthe landalthoughthe landwas acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase 11 It is Bhaithal vim c^ngedand these areas ceased to be Todhisfatl boundaries I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24 101994 although they clearly establish the commercial whth ? I " purposefor ^h ch land ,s acquired is a relevantfactor WhZ vate of the property acquired the fait for mm! potentialityto be used .P: buildingpurposes in immediateor in near future needsto be considered. ^ '^^IcL'reTlyi'' of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occunied h^, fh buildingsare to be treatedas hoLZTsth^lnl ^qZtZZTL^rr^Tr, "P residential ZZTsitt2 T-consideredas beintZinhe,, P"'""""'"/ mgputmbetteruseashousesitesin thenearfuture."

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA App No 347/2009,the factual detailshave beenprovidedwithaprayerthat the ppe ants ofthis appeal be treatedat par with the co-appellantsofthe othei appealsin thesebunchofappeals. •4. Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfof.he ppellants,uwas urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethattheeffectof urbanizationof the 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-DetemiinedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area are relevant to determinethe market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enPiancement of compensation reflectmgjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is i soughtin these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby 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 relevant'evidence for determiAationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connectedwith the land in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaser,and other factors namely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the RespondentsdisclosingcoiTect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtandwhileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) D.RJ 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 sharpincrease in pricein ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntilreasonsfor such shaip increase are explained by producingin evidencethe seller LA.APP. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan ..A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur t f and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami 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 coordinateBench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (supra)and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice of the 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 thatthere is no scopefor fiirtherenhancementfrom 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.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advancedby both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the'decisionscited,whatemergesisthatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is the price'paidby willingpurchaserto awilling LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.Aop.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan U.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofViilagePochanpur Page15 of 29. n 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 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 the casemay be;

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandforbuildingpurpose;

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

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

(vii) landsaroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demandfor building purposes, to specify a few. "

¶18The potentialityoflandfor the puiposeofdevelopmentas alsofor buildmgpurposesdependsupon alarge numberof factors.For the said puipose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purposefor lAApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal U.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Wh.ch the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent ev»ts to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in nnash(supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevantfactorsfor detemiination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands,it has beenheld by the Apex Court •n SinsH(supra)that the exemplarsofsmallpiecesofland relied upon by the appellantscouldnot beagroundto discardthemespecially whenexemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwerenotavailable.

¶19Aforesaiddictumstandsreiteratedby the Apex Court in Special W Officer^ Anr M.K. SaUe,,(2011)7SCC 0bMTr"'"™"pon rmlocation,.situationor potentialityof the villages, which are s.tuatedhaving similaradvantageavailableto them even as ^e^ards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing the :rr::::e~

¶20It ,s awell establishedpropositionof law that the burden of provmgthe true marketvalue ofthe acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for aparticularputpose.But it is arded is on the claimant.For this proposition,the decisionof the ApexCourtm ,supra)canbereferredto withadvantage lat dfal : - Of«He fact 1 . Situated in close vicuiity of residential of.40%'rriT 0^ war s evelopment charges was improper. The pertinent .0se..at.onsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluDessai(Supra) deserveattention,whichareas under:- ^ XT 2' ""•'"•"I -.»pp,uwolos ™"",d , "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 accountof under-valuation or otherpricedepressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note ofthe clinchingobservations pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands 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 between a willingvendee and the willingvendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreedbetween reasonableprudentpersons actingin the normalmarketconditionsare the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principlesto deteiminethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- Primarily, the increase in landprices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin 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. lA.App. No. ]195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal i-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App..No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur On the otherhand, in urbanorsemi-urbanareas, wherethe developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivity all around, the escalation in marketprice is at a much higher rate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalationsin prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreperyear, duringthe nineties.On the otherextreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of 'any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated oryearsor rosemarginallyata nominalrateof1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a signficant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increasesin market value oflands in the rural areas Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat'bestbe onlyaroundkai/ofit. thatis about5% to 7.5%perannum. f °{ T in the JTdZr ofclearandspecific Mdence relatingto increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higherrate ofincrease or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in TeZm'e ^oulddependupon Normally,recourseis takento the mode ofdeterminingthe marketvalue byprovidingappropriateescalationov!rthe marketvalueofnearbyland,inpreviousyears fe /9 n V/ r transactionsor acquisition),where there • acTumt"^""'—sale transactionsI mlTy "^ighbourhoodThe said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sde wheK the Zv^is and unreliablestandard market-valneofalaluiZqMrS't annual increase method with reference 'to TZl't >A.A,P No.nV20.0.»"n™dAp°So1S;p°X"» acqu^Uionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls.This is because, over the course ofyears, the mte' of annual mic^orfM ^ periodsofstagnationin ofZlr^

¶24ThisCoiT.is mind&lofthedictumoftheApexCourtin StateintlmnalDevelopmentCorporation(HSWC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmeti^ods.Whatwas saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra)is as under;- i,r=;"i ^ !5. U.di,«dl,. to. ^ r: r."''r**" -«« 7" 7"""'®™ P purchasedthe agriculturalland in Village Pochanpurat aprice whichvariedfrom?52 lacsto r62 lacsperacre, •

¶26WhetheraforesaidSaleDeeds(Ex.PW-1/4to ExPWl/,0^ .• k r - — and 2! - .n respectofthecompactblockoflandmeasuring,8 Bighas^6 rr;;:r . ^v^dently,aforesaid sale exemnlars ip , l-A.App.No 1195/2008ft ' ' DSCdS l-A.App. No. 294/20.10& (a (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 same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establishthe.advantages attached 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 agriculturallands 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 such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., M/za ^y^ami Satsang, Beasv^hohad 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 V5. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters,thoughthe land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlandswere beingused for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus,' it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing W.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal uA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur marketprice ofthe land in questionwouldpay such a high priceunless 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 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 .witli no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶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 of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tKe'nei^hborhood LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal \ LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof VillageBIjwasan \ LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appealsof VillagePochanpur ' Page22 of 29 orwhetheritbe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out whatyvill be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by anyoftheparties,withreferenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section '^(^) ofthe Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots 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 relevant date of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto ^ the actualuse to which it wasput and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out accordingto its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving increasedvaluefor such bujldingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland^ indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land 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 adjoming undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of-Lai Chand(Supra),a coordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands ds being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA ratesfor allotnientofdevelopedlandor the DDA'sPre-DeterminedRates fof alternateallotmentsfor fixingthe marketvalueoftheacquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalueofthe landmquestionwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.SanjayPoddar, learnedseniorcounselfor the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe •: - escalationat the compoundedrateof 10% per amium is taken 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 the LandAcquisitionCollectoris morethantlieaforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancementgranted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictumof the Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra),cautioningthe Courtsto adopt ! progressiveincreasemetliod in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to aneighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthegap is ofonlyofafewyears,maybecomeUnsafe 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 detemiining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 11.95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA-App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur' J escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶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 coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (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) escalation granted by the Reference Court @ 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-Objectionsofthe respondentai-e dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agriculturalland bythe Governmentw.e.f. 1®' April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased-or • not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notifi-cationin question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^'' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is tnre-thatvide aforesaidNotificationof the year 1994the land use of the acquiredland had changedbut that by itself is not sufficientto • ITV.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofA/lllageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 25 of29 . J presume that the acquired lands had gained potentialityfor being oons.deredas developedlands. The evidenceled is laclcingon the vital aspectoftherebeingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands ""t"»-"»- Sasang.Beasheavilyrelieduponbytheappellantsdisclosethatthesale ofthesatdlandswas foragriculturalputpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4ofthe Land A ••• -------wereputtoagrtc::re.rrb:: qu red lands upon change of their use post the year 1994 then appellantscouldhavelaidtheirhandson othersale instancesin th'e area V. age Pochat^purtoareUgiousinstitutionand anothersaleinstance Vtllage Samalkha (Ex.PW-I/l,)witi^out leading any evidence to r hthat^thequalityandpotentialityofth.saleexemplarsof/.a... Village P°<=hanpurand the sale exemplarof Villas ^. « to grant h.ghercompensationwhile relyingupon the aforesaid mstances. Therefore,in view of the afore-referreddictum of the CbLoTs '^^^oP'nentCorporation or thet " °™ ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light ofthe l^.App, No llQ^/9nno p LA.APP Nc.'291/2010?'^ Bharthal I^-APP.NO. nwoios % would be expectedto be the .marketgrov^h a"d what the markethad actuallygrown,Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe marketvalue ofthe acquired landsmJalSingh(Sjtpra)as wellas inSushUKumar(Supra)andIfind no reasonto takeadifferentviewthanthe one whichhad beentakenby coordmate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai SingU (Supra)and (Supra).

¶38Ihis Court IS ofthe consideredview that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertainingto Village.Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has nghtly rehed upon the Goveromenfsminimutnprice for agricultural todsmDelh. to fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsin question, mmg oftheReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village ywasan,oftherebeingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situation ofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplaris bonte out from the> evidenceon record.ButIfindthattheaspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands bemg in closevicinityofthe IGI Aitport,IndianOil and haratjetroleumDepots»d ofRailwayline passingthroughVillage harthal and there beinga100 meters vide road startingfrom NH-S from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIandPartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicimtyofthe acquiredlands has somehowmissedthe attentionofthe ReferenceCourt.In the consideredopinionofthis Court,on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlandsin question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I WhatpersuadesthisCourtto grant 10% increaseoverand abovemarket value of the acquired lands.as assessed by the Rtference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the " jjp So / \ settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan V5. Collector,

(1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the., acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a • building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶39Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellantsof Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar {Svcpxsi),I am inclined to grant 10% increase over.and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal U.App. No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 28of29 . <0 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@ 6,50,000/-per^j^^rthe Category A land and @^14,69,60.0/-per Igmka for the Categoiy lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensationawarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin ' the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelayin filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid.Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar Generalofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordiiiglyprepared. January 06,2012 pkb LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. IMO. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur C <r (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Poi> • /•" ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I-LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA Appellant Through: Mir.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentinappealsfiledby UOI) .|^ Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefor Mr.R.S. Tomar. Mr.B.p. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus IJNIONOF INDIA&ANR. .....Respondents rhrough: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BanlceyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. V CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R %

12.0L2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012(For correctionV This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcoiTectionin Orderof6^^ January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 i if" . t of the application.Advancecopy of this applicationhas alreadybeen given to remaining counsel for 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 itis orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no; 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. Inviewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12,2012 pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 GAUR) JUDGE Page 2

% IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 722/2010 UNION OF INDIA & DDA Through: versus BHAGWAN SINGH & ORS Through: Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 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.Solanld 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. Respondent 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