Union of India & Anr v. Bijender Singh & Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma V5. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb GAUR) JUDGE Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. if A \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI i % Reserved on: November .I8i 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) i LA.APP. 1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maaii, 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.Azam 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 Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathii Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNIONOFINDIA& ANR. . Respojidents Through: Mr.SanjayPOddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhavaridM^.NavlinSwain, 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& GKl.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.452/2008' LA.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& CM.No.5990/2010(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APR701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; lA.App, No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No, 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.^pp.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page1of 29 LA.APP.771/2008& CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections)'LA APP 772/2008-CMr^n/Z' (Cross-Objitions);\iAPR7V4S TAitr><^^^°ss-Objections);LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Obiections)' LA.APP.785/2008;LiApSri' CM.No^l5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No931/2009 S[°n;°7S9' LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.8I3/2008& Trm!!nv ^ ^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008& CM.No.806/2009 , . ft."?''A-APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008-L/T..APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008-LA.APP833/2008-I^.APR844/2008;LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APP.873/2008& CM.No779/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009(Cross-ObiectionsV CmZ'ST' LA.APP.915/2008;LAApTpSri' CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008-LA APP Q7^/9nn»- LA.APP.974/2008& CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections')•LA APP 975/2008• LA.APR976/2008;LA.APP.978/2008;LA.APP.986S1' CM.No572^ (Cross-Objectwns);LA.APP:993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections; LA.APP.1031/2008& CMNo 17335/2008rCrnroKW T LA.APP.1032/2008&CM.No.599/2009(C™f LA^ CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Obiectionsv' LAAPP'1051/^008&C^N^°i7969^90^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008; T A ADr>-I (Cross-Obiections)-LA APP 105?/70nX' CM^. CMNo752/20lf nw^T'l' •;A-APP-1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& nv t nf^^°ss-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM No 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CMNo 17259/9008rrrnocnv 1 V & CM No 2448/2008 °;i/^";^2008(^^^ LA.APP.1086/2008 rrrn. f-N r (^^^s^-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CMNo619/2009 rrvol nv . ^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.Ill3/2008& CMNo3826/2009 L^-APP.'ILS: a"p'?.'S (Soll-Snl: LA.APP.1182/2008-IA APP 183^/^!^^^^^008; LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP."84/2008:LA.APP."8Sf:i^pX^^^^ -A.App.Nc. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 2 of 29., % (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008;LA.APP.l194/2008;LA.APP.l195/2008;LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP.1198/2008& 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.69S7/2009(CrossrOlJjections);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.APP74/2009 T^^APpTnwonnL 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. 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; LA.APR202/2009;LA.APE,203/2009;LA.APP.208/2009& ^™.iNo.,uz"^uuy ff™?,LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009;LA.APP.222/2C09; 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.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; . LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.447/2009-LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP;466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009-LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009' LA,APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009' LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009' 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.'1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009' Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009, CM.No.7027/2009 LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.367/2009; (GRID-B) 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: Decemher OH. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 I LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEVENDERKUM^ ^ riirough: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh IA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/zoiO&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. 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. 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: IS/Ir.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. 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 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. LA.APP. LA.APP. 11/2010 53/2010 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 49/2010 54/2010 59/2010 223/2010 277/2010' 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 725/2010 ,731/2010 764/2010 364/2010 99/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,'VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND I.A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A,App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan , LA.App.No.'lll/2010 & connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur % (GRID-C) Reserved on: Dp.r.pmher 18. 2011 Prmounced 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 LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNIONOF INDIA8^ ANR Through; Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr,Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal SharmaandMr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 • 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011' ' 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. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 .248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 • 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 I.A.APP No 1-/20iS. nn OfVillage.Bijwasan NO.1..../2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 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 (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 StJNIL GAUR ORDER %

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe conipensationis 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(SO)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-II mDelhi; commenced with the issuance of Notifieationof 13^^ December, .2000 under Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining 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 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'(withoutop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwiththe assessmentofmarketvalueoftheir,acquired LA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVinageBijwasan lA.App.No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur IA.App lA.App, lA.App, agriculturallands, appellantshad soughtreference the LandAcquisiHonAc, 1894and the ReferenceCourtvideinipugned judgmenthad enhancedcompensation@tl5.00 lac§ per acre for the appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' and @?13 their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhavebeendismissed.

¶5In theseappeals,furtherenhancementofcomiensationsoughtby tteappellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis a[ the rateofRupees l-.ftylacsperacre,whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhavesought compensationat the rateofRupeesThirtylacsperacre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer KarnataUHousingBoarUvs. Lan4Ac,uisUi"nJfflee.,GaUa,a^

(2011)2see246;AnjaniMoluDemivs. StatiofGoaandAm. ?IZ under Section 18 of x/j .

(2010) I see 444; Sangunthala(Dead) through IRs. Vs. Special Tehstldar(LandAcquisition)&

(2010)3SCe 661;RanvtrSingh andAnr,vs. UnionofIndiaAIR2005 SC 3467;ChindhaFakiraPatil mthroughLRs vs. The SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer.Jalgaon ».(.)SCAl.

20.2«, OR, ( ) RJ 1(DB); Vdho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors 2010(.) seALB 41; Cha^s vs. State^ Eunjah. Ors., ale 362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. StateofMaharashtra.(2009) II S( A 171-crj w ^ 36 lacs per acre for Bijwasan; whereas, Hsee 171; AtmaSingh (Dead) throughLRs and\ors vs. Stateof Banana

(20O8)2SCe 568; W,P.(e)No. 4143/2003titledas ^.InuKhorana^s.OramSahha^ Ors. decidedon 26.03.2010. IH-.ThakarsibhaiDevjibhuiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer NO. 111/2010&connectedAppealsOfVillagep^hanpur Page 7 of29 ,1^: Guiam and Anr.. AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010)11 SCC;i75;RisalSingh&Ors. Vs UnionofIndia&Anr.,2006(89)DRJ52/(DB);LalChandvs.Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. Rame^HbhaiJivanbhaifytel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; VaUiyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)andAm., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh DaUatray Thirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapdMehra(Major General)&Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia&Anr, 176(2011)PLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titledas SwatSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority& decided on 24.04.2008;Om Prakash(dead)byLRsandOrs Ks. Unit>nofIndia,(2004)10SCC 627-Satpal& Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

26.09.2011;LA. APP. No.59/2007titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India.decidedon07.06.2011;andfiA"feJf"«,,UnionofIndia,2m

(170)DLT371.

¶6On the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan.learnedarguingcounselfor the appellalts thatthe locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturallandhas to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area overaperiodof timeandthe samecannotbe limitedto thenearfuturealone.

¶7It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat elh,-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passesthrougl,the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit intotwo parts on the easternsideofthe railwaylineis theIGI Aiq,ort,NewDelhi .AApp,.o.u:/2010&connectedAppealsofVi,£ and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarkaSub-Cit)^ 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.Solankilearnedcounselfor 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 acquiredmthe year 1984 for developmentofDwarkaPhase-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/msi^to 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 firom agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entirelandofVillageBharthal hadceasedto be rural in viewoftheNotificationof24"" October.1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discardedby the ReferenceCourt by relying upon P. Rama W.APP NO. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsOfVillageBharthal A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Reddi& Ors. vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decisionin 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 caniiot be liniited 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 X52 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 Dessaivs. 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 acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Government for allotmentof alternate plots mthe year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is LA,App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal .. . uA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur "Hag© 10 or 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)asreferredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds:- a) "ignores the acknowledgementon the part of the respondentabout th^ 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 y ,2 ooyj 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 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 thevalueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin valueofthe SaleDeeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'blgSupremeCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land ' Acqumtion Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007 The Hon'hleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin W.APP, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan A,App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur '4 LA./ .. appeals or Village Pochanpur case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin 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 ofthe subject landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis much higherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockA and ^13,36,000in BlockB in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v^. State of Haryana 2010(1) see 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No.l framed oni27.2.2007. 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 -masterplanand 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. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' auctionedsimilarlysituatedlandas commercialblocks at the rate ofabout lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland. Ik f lowerthan the I e-deteminedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2 for similarlysituatedland. k) Does not tah into accountthepossibilityofchangeof the use ofthe landalthoughthe landwas acquiredfor d^foprnent pu^oses of Dwarka Phase 11 It is marthalw^ changedand these areas ceased to be ToMtT , • and 24 101994 altlwugh they clearly establish the commercial ''(LA) mm V. Tahsildar 1SS' r/ss;'sr£ ^^IZtd^a^°{he said'^Zndb""'^'"^' buildi^^. . \ occapjerf by the ^ere Icmlrldf ^ '""ds quarte,^7sL^y"Tri°^^'""^ "P ''^'dential hoZTsiti2 T-beingconsideredas House site the adjoininglands have the potenUal of beingputin betteruseas housesitesin thenearfZle-

¶13In the briefsynopsis-by Ved Pal and others of LA. App No ^7/2009,the factualdetailshave beenprovidedwithaprayerthat the 0th r eo-appellantsofthe otherappealsin thesebiinchofappeals. '4. S.pp,en,emi"gthe aforesaidargutnentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,.twas urgedbyMr.AnandYadav,Advocatethattheeffectof ) ; urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the changein land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238;KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)& ; Grs. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DetemiinedRates, ReservedAuction Rates ofthe area are relevantto determinethe market value of the acquired lands and infabt the sale •instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt 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-objectionsfiledby theRespondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certifiedcopy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannotbe taken as relevant"evidence for detemiiixatibnof the market value unless and.until the same is properly connectedwith the land in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand otherfactorsnamely,nature,situationofthe property,proximit}'to 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 andAnr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. N6;656/2008titledas SmhilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat sharp,increase in pricein a,shortperiodcannotbe talcento be realisticuntilreasonsfor such sharp increaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller: LA.App.No.1195/2008&connectedAppeal?ofVillageBharthal ' . ' LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan • LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur and the purchaseras no prudentpersonhaving knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay such a higherpay as reflectedin 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 countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed, by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin 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 r' 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 ReferenceCourtwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deservesto be broughtin line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby aliowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon.closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the'decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparablelandis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto awilling LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ Page 15 of 29. Py seller and the best evidence is the comparablesale instances. While dealingwith the questionofpotentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court mVdho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE41 in these words:- - "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or villagewhich had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousorany otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

(li) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as the casemay be;

(iii) possibilityofobtainingwaterand electi^icsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beputup on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using theacquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

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

(vi) benefits or advantages of educationalinstitutions health care centres, or the like in the surrounding acquired land which may become ,, availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

(vii) landsaroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland ^ ^^^andfor building purposes to specifyafew." c, t-

¶18The potentialityoflandforthepurposeofdevelopmentas alsofor buildingpun^ose-sdependsuponalargenumberoffactors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purposefor •App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page'16of29 which tlie lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent to some extent. It has been so observedby the Apex Court in ofZ r' 7"" mpensationfor acquiredlands,it hasbeen held by the Aoex Court -n (supra)thatthe exemplar,ofsmallpiecesofl»drel^ r Im ^ «y exempars oflargepiecesoflandwerenotavailable

¶19Aforesaiddictumstandsreiteratedby the Apex Courtin Special ' r,o. """*" «™~ rmlocation, situationor potentiality-of the villages, which are prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing the

¶20It is awell establishedpropositionof law that the h ^ r- - - marketvalueofthe acquired acquired the agriculturalland for aparticularpurpose. But it ' aTarlVro!r'l AoexC t . ' of the ^pexCourtm w<."(Supra)canberefeiredto withadvantage that J' that the acquired land was situaterf . • observationsmade bv th A made by the Apex Court in AnjanlMoluDessai(Suor»^ aeserve attention, whir.h ...,. _ deserveattention,whichareas under:- "App.UV2010S Ihe 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-severalsales ofsimilarlandswhosepricesrangein anarrowbandwidth, the average thereofcan be taken, as representingthe marketprice. But where the values disclosedin respectof two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inferencethattheyare with referenceto dissimilarlandsor 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 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 willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreedbetween reasonableprudentpersons actingin the normalmarketconditionsare the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principlesto determinethe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as leiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase,in landprices depends on four factors - situationof 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 development,in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. I.A.App. No, J195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 1-A.App.Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan U.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur p ig f29 ' On the otherhand, in urbanorsemi-urbanareas, wherethe developmentisfaster, 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 theotherextreme in r^ote rural areas where there was no chance of am, d^elopment.and hardlyany buyers, the pricesstarted foryearsor rosemarginallyatanominalrateofI%^r2% per annum Th^e Uthus a significant JffereZ Z '"greasesjnmarket value of lands in urbaJsemiZbZ areZ ""''to oflands in the rural reas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about10% to 15%per annum the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat bestbe Ihis rule of thumb refers to the general trend in fh>. nineties,to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidencerelatingto increase in prices. WhJe tZl are specialre^onsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease or any specific^idence relating to the actual increase in Tesame Von hhft ismevidenceofanycontemporaneLsaleLr^Zo^Z ' tr vhere the gap is larJ^ pT ""1 standard market.valueof a land determiningthe uA.App lA.App I.A increasemay feWfw...,. f of annml ofincrease. • Courtis mmd&lofthedictumoftheApexCourtin StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting (Supra)IS as under:- sometimesfelt that "^^"""'^yout, courts have

¶25Undisputedly,mthese appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of VillageBharthal.VillageBijwasanof the period in ques.on are not availableand thesolitazysale exemplarstronglyrelied p, ad purchasedthe agriculturaltod in Village Pochanpurat aprice ^ variedfrom?52 lacsto ?62 lacsperacre. .

¶26WhetheraforesaidSaleDeeds(Ex.PW-I/4to Ex.PW-l/IO)which 2 '>-ca,lybetweenone set ofco-owners^ n.,haS^amtSatsang mrespect.ofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand6 to be" ' 'I""'®''question whichis required' ~ ^ — exemplars,i.e., Salenj! lAApp.No, 29J/2010&connett^ PonA tn 1A I ) (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 dependentuponthe 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 agriculUiral.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 aforesaid sale exemplars been 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., Rama Swami Satsang, 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 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 comein evidence thatthe acquiredlandswere beingused for.agriculturalpurposetilltheir acquisition.Thus; it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur m r K [ I 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 beenj rightly discarded by the i Reference Court.

¶28So far ats the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of f 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 exemplarsdisclosingrealistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, no"^ 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 Qrs., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determimtion ofthe market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin t^eli&i^hborhood IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan \ , i.A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur \ Page22of29 m or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto . thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,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 marketvalueof the acquiredland with reference to the relevantdate of' publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasputand increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard Asmall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th ofthe market value ofthe 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."

¶31In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land chargedby the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same,and transferringperpetualleaseholdrights, 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 adjoining undeveloped freehold lands; Following the dictum of-ia/ (Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands^ beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueof LA-App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan -A.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i1 the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus,,Ifmd that the ReferenceCourt hasrightlynotadoptedthe DDAratesfor allotmentofdevelopedlandor the DDA'sPre-DeterminedRates fof alternateallotmentsfor fixingthe marketvalueofthe aoqviredagriculturallaildsin question. !

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease methodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalueofthe landmquestionwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland,othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounselfor the respondenVcross-objectorthat evenifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is tien from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening,the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I,and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthepricefixedby the LandAcquisitionCollectoris morethanthe aforesaidesealatedprice 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 acquiredland onlywhen the gap is of4-5 years and beyondthatit may be unsafe, even if it relates to aneighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthegapisofonlyofafewyears,maybecomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger.In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e.,ofDwafkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining fte market value by providing appropriate LA,App. Noai9y2008&connectedAppealsOfVillageBharthal A.APP. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVlllagePOchanpur • ' ' 5^. escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the ' ' ' ' c j * respondeiit/cross-objectorhad urged th^t the Reference Court has i i ' granted escalation @ 12% per annum, !which; is unwarranted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SushUKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentidity of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annumcannotbereducedto 10% per annum.Inthis viewof the matter,the cross-Objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt firpm the date of fixationof the mininiumprice for the agriculturalland by the 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'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by the learnedcounsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceasedto be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban.It is tnre-thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthatby itselfisnot sufficientto l.A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. m/2010& connectedAppealsofvillagePochanpur ' page25of29 J •i ' i presume that the aoqui^d lands had gained potentiaUty for bei ofthesa.dlandswas foragriculturalpurpose,

¶7Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till th issuanceof Notificationunder Section4ofthe r . T 1894 fh. • . AcquisitionAct *. ,"j.»" Mfc.t.; ;«~:r:™r:r::rr:-r ' ^ ^-^geI^chanpurtoa.ligiousinstitutionand anothersaleinstance i 0 Vdlage Samallcha(Ex.PW-i/1,) -abhshthat-the qualityand potentialityofthe saleexemplarsof in Village^.chanpurand the sale exempla;^ ^ y-UageJamalkha(Ek.PW-,/")are,comparablewiththeacquiredland. ' Vdlage Samalkha (Ex, PW-l/H).annot be treated to be sufficient - ~o gran^i^ercompensationwhile.lyingupon rhe atb.said • Aoexr " ^ Lth!?! •' an sacquu-edunder the same Notificationin the light of the iTiininiuiTiprice fixed hv tKo r' Delhi whfch «ut^ land in I Delh,.which generally factors in the rise of price due to hi 1, ' potentiality.Taking note of the fact that th • g er i there ,s a gap betweenwhat w'app NO 294/C^^^ # would be expectedto be the marketgrowth and what the markethad acMIygrown,Government'smmimnmagricul.t:ralpricehas beenheld Oereasonable basis for assessingthe ritarke.value of the acquired an smJo.S.ngk(S^pra)as well Kumar(Supra)andIfind no reasonto t^eadifferentviewthantheonewhichhad beentakenby coordmateBench of this Cou« in the aforesaid cases of...J (Supra)andtoMATH/Ma;.(Supra).

¶38This Courtis ofthe consideredviewthat the ReferenceCourtin the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has Ia!d ' price for agricultural mDe hi to fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsin question. ^ ingo theReferenceCourtinmatterofVillageBharthalandVillage Buwasan,oftherebeingno evidencethatthepotentialand the situation ofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evtdenceon record.ButIfindthattheaspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acqu,redlands beingin closevicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and haratjetroleumDepots»d ofRailwayline passingthroughVillage arthal and there being a100 meters vide road startingfrom NH-8 from ShtvMuttisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIandPartU, dividingthe acquiredlands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the Vicmtyofthe acquiredlandshas somehowmissedthe attentionofthe ReferenceCourt.In the consideredopinionofthis Court,on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,Ae acquiredlandsin question,certainly assumehtgherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I WhatpersuadesthisCourtto grant 10% increaseoverand abovemarket value of the acquired,lands as assessed by the Reference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the settled legal position aptly highlightedby the Apext Court in Mifza 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 definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactness:can never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesof the instantcases,whichpersuadesmeto treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decisionin Smhil ^Mmar'(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover.andabovethe marketvalueof the acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providinga higherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin qtiestion.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethemarketvalue assessedbythe ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthaland Village Bijwasan. Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010.& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page28 of29 (f-the appellants of Village Pochanpurareiallo allowed to the extent mdicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands ofthese tlireevillagesin questionisdetermmed@?16i50,000/-per^i^forthe Category'A' land and®?14,69,6Q0/-per b^forthe Catefe^^' lands in question. ;

¶41On the aforesaid enhancementin the compensation awarded statutorybenefitsas per the LatidAcquisitionAct, 1894as explainediti the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelayin filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston theenhancedcompensationshall bepaid.Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto,proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid tenns with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany;depositedby eithersidewiththe Registrar Generalofthis Court, to the concernedRefei-enceCourt.Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06,2012 pkb C c (StJNILGAUR) JUDGE Poi- • -A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. IMO. 294/2010&connectedAppearsofVillageiijwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppeals,ofVillagePochanpur K- •# IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APR 1195/2008 , ; i : '! ' i RANBIRSHARMA | i Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmilMaan,Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder(jodana,Advocate • A^.N.S.Negi and Adr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.RoutjMr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiaiidMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.P. Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOFI^IA&ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKifan, ^ Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. GORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R

12.01.2012 C.M.AdpL No. 752/2012(Fnycorrectinn^ This is^an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof6*''January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave accepted-thenotice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 'i?:- r m ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6^^ J^uary, 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 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 forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof. rtL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 12,2012 .pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page2

* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 727/2010 UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: versus BIJENDER SINGH Sc 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.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 Bih^ 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