Sis Ram Decd Thr Lrs v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

29.09.2011 The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against judgment dated 14.9.2010 passed by the Reference Court in respect of land situated in village Bhalswa Jahangirpuri, covered under the notification

30.7.1998 issued under Section of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ^the Act') and the declaration

4.8.1998 issued under Section 6 of the Act, subject matter of Award No.18/2000-2001. Counsels for the parties jointly state that by a recent judgment passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.APP. No.999/2010 entitled "Rai Singh vs. UOI & Anr.", the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appeals of the expropriated land owners as LA.APP. 639/2011 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. also those filed by the Union of India, hence maintaining the judgment of the Reference Court. A copy of the aforesaid judgment is handed over by the counsel for the respondent and taken on record. The operative para of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow : "28. In the absence of any cogent placed on record by either parties other than minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted correct principle and has relied upon the correct has given correct appreciations by suitably increasing price to make up the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and r' the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cross objections, whether filed by the land owners or the Union of India.

¶29I leave the parties to bear their own costs." Guided by the aforesaid judgment, the present appeal, which is identical to the appeals of the appellants in the aforesaid judgment, is dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. o HIMA KOHLI,J SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 sk LA.APP. 639/2011 s IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW. DELHI % ludament Reserved On: 19'^"August 2011 i . ludament Delivered On: 19^" September. 2011 + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH , Appellant . Through; Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate • Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. Vs. UOI & ANOTHER ... Respondents i' Through:, Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate . ; : & Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin • Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Ka.omudi Kiran, Advocates for R-l : . AND . . + LA.APP. 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM , No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 1007/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010, LA.APP. . 1036/2010 & CM No.12865/2011, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP. 6/2011^ CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2011, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. 163/2011 LA.APP. .246/2011, LA.APP. 247/2011, LA-APP. ^ 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011, LA.APP. 347/2011, lAaPP. , , 375/2011, LA.APP..386/2011, LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011, LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. 407/2011. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000, &. Award No, 06/2002-2003, Village-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) . , . , AND LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters. Page 1 of22 ^4) 3: .+ LA.APP. 57/2011- & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA;APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011. / (Relating to Notification u/Sec.

30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000^2001, Village-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) CORAM: ^ HON'BLE NR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Wlietherthe Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ^ ^ ' PRADEEP NANDRAIQG. I.

1.. I proceed with an apology to the,reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time then to a notification issued prior in point.of time; iDut the reason is that learned counsel for land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required , price to be suitably reduced pertaining to notification which was issued earlier in point of time. .

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village.BhalswaJahangir Puri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No;999/2010&connectedmatters Page2 of22 •r to a notification

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4-of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, . 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section .6. of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. Affc,er following due process, Land Acqi^isition-Collector • announced his award bearing No;6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002,, whereby he assessed the fair nnarket value of the acquired land at f2,87,916.66 per bigh^, which is equivalent to ^13.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed , . at ?13.82 lakhs per acre. '

¶3Dissatisfied with assessment made by the' Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.112A/2008 titled Ra.i Singh Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the. acquired . land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or ^14,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Learned Reference Court, . while assessing the fair^ market value of the acquired Jand, adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by ,the Government as on

01.04.2000, notified vide Circular

11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as learned Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing compensation, did not grant appreciation for the period from

01.04.2000 till the'date notification under Section 4 of the . Land Acquisition Act was issued on

15.09i.2000, but ' .learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days

(a) 12% per annum with reference.to base date 1.4.20,00 and the price ^13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App;No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page3 of22 .y^Jt

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in saiiie revenue estate of village Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section of the Land Acquisition Act 1894,

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose I.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on

04.08.1998. After following due ..process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced an award bearing No.'18/20Gp-01

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed fair market value of the acquired land at ^2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalent to ?11.20 lakhs per acre. ^ '

¶6Dissatisfied with , the assessment made by Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under" Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/2008 titled C/?ano^rai/i/at/ i/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^11,46,670/- per acre. The difference : in. the destination reached is . on same reason as noted hereinabove pertaining to the notification dated .15.9.2000 i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector adopting the iand rate notified by the Government with effect from. 1.4.1997 vide circular

25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement 11% per annum . for interregnum period. .

¶7The Union of India as well as land owners have challenged the assessment made'by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 &. connected matters • Page4..of;22 "V •• ' Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned above. , . .

¶8On' behalf of land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed, on following documentary evidence:- - .

(a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification

16.04.1999 . (Exhibit PW-4/i), whereby i,t disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase in, respect of developed residential commercial ' properties owned by L&DO.. Relying on this ' document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the ; ; rate of residential land in Azadpur, which.' is stated to ' , be close to village Bhalaswa Jahangjr Purl, was fixed' at ^5830/- per square meter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per acre it was urged that if 50% is deducted towards development cost; the land owners, should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of .?1,17,96,200/-per acre.

(b). The rate charged by jViCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in ^ ' • • ' '• terms of .the Resolution No.705

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MGD decided to allot developed plots to. the transporters

(g) ?425/- per square meter Exhibit PW-3/2, a cop.y of/the Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD decided to allot the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar @ ?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material good evidence. Relying on th.ese LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters • ^ ' Page 5. of22 • ^ documents, learned counsel for land, owners argued that rate stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fair market value of developed land comes to ^7,19,857/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account dfthe development costs, for .undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to ^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be ?24,76,592/-per acre..

(c) Learned counsel for land owners also placed, reliance on the auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-^98 1998-99 (Exhibits P\A/-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying on the brochure of.DDA pertaining to the year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ^23.72 lakh to ?28.4 lakh,, which according to learned counsel translates to a price of ^14,36,36,363 per . acre counsel urged that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom - pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land.

(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/i), whereunder land measuring, 2-19 bigha was sold (S ^32,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, learned counsel uf^ged that the price per "acre comes . to ^56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It was •LA.App.No.999/2010'&connectedmatters • Page6-oft2 . ^ contended that this sale deed should be' relied upon, after making a reasonable deduction towards , development cost to deterhiine.the fair market value - . , of undeveloped agricultural'land in village Bhaiswa Jahangir Purl. - Another-sale deed dated

24.03^2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring -4-16' • • bigha situated Jri revenue estate of village Mamurpur wa^'sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon. . ,

(e) . Learned counsel for the land, owners also relied • . upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was jM. ' • executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'jvi/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996

(g) ^18 lakhs per acre. It was . • urged that land was in, the revenue estate of • . village Bhaiswa Jahangir Purl and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of land in the said village as of the date of the agreement to sell , : ^ i.e. 5.8.1996. , :

¶9Per contra; Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of .Union of India relied on a Sale Deed dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2), whereunder 1-03 bigha of land .,,,. in village Bhaiswa. Jahangir Purl was sold .at a price of ^1,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per annum is to be given-on said value, the price as on the. date of the / • notification under Section 4 comes to ?1,94,782 per bigha, and , , thus it was argued that since price of'similar land is available , in tjie same village, it would be imprudent to travel to. the , adjoining village or to a-dopt the price of developed liand for ^ LA.App.No.999/2010&.connectedmatters Page7 of22 • . w y:; • fixing tine marl<et x/aiue of undeveloped agricultural -land : / / having-a 'vast area: Learned counsel also argued that .the learned Land Acquisition. Collector has assessed %e, M . ' market value of the land ;at a price much, higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 so has: the learned Reference . "••Court. • ' , •• V ' •' ;

¶10It rriay be noted that when judgment was reserved in the ^ above captioned niatters. on 19^^ August, 2011, decision had been reserved, for judgment in a batch of land acquisition ' appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.266/20Q8 titled lalSinah v\ . Vs. UP! & Ann jn which similar arguments as were advanced . vyith respect to similar relied upon in the instant' ; - appeals learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Podda.r _ . : ; submitted that ih Tesponse to arguments of learned counsel'for land owners, the arguments which he; had v ; , " : advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his ; '••^••"•.-•'response. .

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Pun has j ~ come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand t/ya/f^s^PafM/.^/-/), • . , : who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled 7?^/ S/W/? ,s • Vs Union of India m which he has explained the topnlnny nf fhp .- . area while proving tine /lyfeivz/^ Ex.PW-2/1 of village,Bhalswa ' :• . Jahangir Puri. His te^tinnony would reveal that viHage Kadipur • : •: :and Libaspur are situated 'in the North, villages Mukhmelpuf ; -• •. •. and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badii and : Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola; and " Sarai Pipalthala are situate'd in the South of Village Jahangir ' • Puri. • • •• : • LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' Page,8.of22 ; ;

¶12I may, additionally note that the lay but plan of the National Capital FTerritory of Delhi, published; by ^ Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that vijlagd Bhalswa • Jahangir Puri' is situated on .the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road ' i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mampdrpur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l. ,

¶13. It needs to be highlighted that whatever development ' took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post; , acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate; of said . . • . • ; village was for re-settlement of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the 0- , character of urbanization in the area was of a kind .where : , potential price increased d.ue to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinoh Vs. Union of -. ; India 19^^ (V) AD (Delhi) 45i,, it was noted that there existed d, - ^ resettlement colony called,Jahangir Puri in the ar^a which had ' : • -• sprung up during the-period of emergency i.e. the'yea^ 1975- - , 76. It has to be reniembered that the two subject acquisitions . ~ ; were also for re-settlement of.slum and J.J,Clusters; . ; : , 14. The decision in LA.App..No.266/2Q08 iai Singh 1/5. UOi & : . • • >4/7r. which was reserved on 12.8.2011 had yet: to be ' ' pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved : for judgment, has Since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 I would highlight that; while assessing the fair .market , . value of the land situated ih 10, revenue estates in the .same ; \ . revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of . villages Pooth KhUrd, Shahpur. Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Xalan, Khera Khurd, Holarnbi Khurd , Bawana, r had noted that topology of .the area LA.App.No.999/2010& connected.matters ' Page^9of22- / . • ', i . c'onstituted. a 'V at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal • . Road i.e. NH-1 Rohtak Road i.e.. NH-lG .bifurcated at a ' common point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi , . Mandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1.

¶15In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land we're acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had'dealt with notifications issued,in the year , 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon sale deed 'P

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) and, the sale deed

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. same sale deeds on ;' which learned counsel tor land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para

(d) of para 8 hereinaboye. ' In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these • two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale. ; deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the, sale dqed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fajr market value for the former - - comes to^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ^63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected 2 sale deeds as , reliable, to , determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on reasoning that.the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered sale deed in evidence,, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated • . that to his knowledge the land was purchased for. ' religious purpose and was being used for a reljgioys , purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010&coimected.matters Page 10 of22 (V been held not to be.reliable to determine, fair market value of agricultural lands on ; reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization '^Christian Organization" as per the testimony of PV\/-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization.stated that the organization had to ' pay the price for the said piece of land as it was the , only plot of the requisite size suitable for requirement of the organization and is being used . for destitute . women • i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) , / see .717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. fsti Rohini & Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009 (.14) SCC iviohd. •Ra.ufuddin \/s. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue ; ' of Section ,51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar. sale deed ,to determine, the market value of land in an area for" reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price, the true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay .to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special ' circumstances or the fancy to buy a. particular piece' of land. An i.nfornned buyer would be one who has, studied the. market-arid has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the, topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy .for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated

20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned • Reference Court pertaining to the notification

27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an , agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ?17,74,109/-per acre as against price which comes to ' ^63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and .^28,89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App:No.999/201.0&connectedmatters Page 11 of22 Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having .• intrinsic of the fanciful price and ex-facie ' I . destroy each other";.-

¶23Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned ' Reference Court, with which I concur, afote-noted reasons in para above would be additional reasons to hold that sale deeds would advisably not be good wherefrom fair . market value of subject lands can be determined • and'more so for the reason I find that under various , awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land " have been acquired and when the acquisition is of • such large an area/it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result , of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing'not to ' note an unreported decision cited by learned . counsel Sh.l.S.Qahiya. being decision

19.12.2008 disposing/of a batch of appeals, lead matter being , LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratap 5/nah • (since deceased) thru LRs l/s. UP! & Ors. ft was highlighted that the sale deed therein by whJch L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had. been . • ignored by the learned Reference Court on the , ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land a'nd , hence price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the, area, was rejected by the Court and the price in . question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the • , Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale., deeds in question i.e. .Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair . : ; market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to : 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accejDt the , value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative , ; of the market value, but found that if the price therein was reduced by l/S*"*^, the price arrived at would be the same as,would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds • ^ .LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page12 of22 ih produced by the Government vyere giving a price of ?1,37,000/- per bigha tlie sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave: the price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come ; to. ^2,31,800/- which ,was near about the price of f2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'^ would be deducted. from the sum of ^3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of sale was 1993 notification . under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995

16.11.1995 the. Court determined fair market value as of the said, dates at same sum; arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ?2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but . meaningfully.- It is not that the Court treated sale deed in question as the basis fpr if it was so, appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore , already noted inherent contradiction in the value of the land price ,as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."

¶16For the reasons' therein, I reject these two sale deeds in /the present case also as reliable' good to determine fair market value of agricultural .land in village Bhalswa jahangir Purl:

¶17As regards the agreement to. sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), land situated in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for ,a sum of,^13 lakhs per acre.' The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed ,01.07.2003 whereuhder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ,^5,70,000/-. ,jL8. Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land: owners was n5,70,000/- per acre as on

01.07.2003,, it is LA.App.No.999/2010(fe bomectedmatters Page 13 of22 lb - V difficult to comprehend the, abnormally high, value as per Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is flS lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was flB lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the price fell to ^15.7 lakhs per acre. I need to highlight that-in paragraph of its decision, learned Reference Court, . while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has .opined that, the said, price ,was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed, willing buyer an informed willing seller without, being influenced by special needs pertaining to a particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale deed as not reliable wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. .

¶19I have discussed this issue in my decision . dated

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah Vs. UO! & Ann i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with of neither buyer nor seller being well-informed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same, not to be good evidence to determine fair market value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. 1 reiterate the same.

¶20As regards. auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,' l do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned, counsel for the land owners concur with decision of the learned Reference Court contained, in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as La! LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page14 of22 •k : •••[? Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (.15) SGC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the evidence relating to auction rates 'Of residential plots or flats by DDA. . -

¶21in my decision

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Sinah Vs. DO! & 'Or5.. I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case with reference to price at which developed plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in iai Singh's case are extracted hereurider:-

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was , the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and. Narela Residential Scheme develop^fed, by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know. ' The inchoate has resulted in same - . factors, being '3-in'number which were noted by the Supreme Court in Lai Chand's case (supra), which ' render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

¶30It is no doubt true, as held ev.en by the learned Reference Court, that with development ,of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme ' and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building . potentiality, but question ^ . would be what .would be the value to which building potentiality would translate itself.

¶31I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the' observation and-the findings of the . Supreme Court in La! Chands case (supra)' has rightly rejected said as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I, promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while. I - , shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value, of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010&coiniecteclmatters Page15 of22 T

¶22Highlighting that ; in La! .Chands case (supra) Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless was too inchoate-whepefrom fair market value could be crystallized. . ,

¶23I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which IMCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be , irrelevant to deterrjiine fair market value of agricultural land,

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned Increase when lease-hold property under LSiDO is . . transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state ,, that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning In Lai Chands case (supra) wherein, this kind of was spe.cifically discussed discarded with ~ reference to village Rithala where',lands were ,acquired for . . ' Rohini Residential Scheme, 1negate the plea for compensation • to be enhanced with, reference to L&DO rates noting that f am concerned with large tracks' of lands ad-measuringi

758.01 • ~ •bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25' From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwarl) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008 It emerg&s that village BurariJs on the east of / village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and indeed plan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri' and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the fanious Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by'Outer Ring Boad'and . LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters '..Page 16 of22 • \ V thus the fair marl<et value of land on a particular dpte in the two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessing the fair market value of the landssituated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuant to notifications

24.07.1998

18.07:2003 issued under Section 4 of . the Land Acquisition. Act, I had considered material on record i.e. in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. ;Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! &' Ors.. 1/5. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, 1 had assessed the fair market value of agricultural land at ^11,60,580.82 per acre for Category A fand, ^10,44,522.73 ' per acre for Category B land ?9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification

24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to notification

18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at tl9,20,568/- per acre for Category A land and ^17,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. I'n lai Singh's case {supra), I had assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages as^unden-S.No. Village Name Date of Notification under Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 ^4.75 for Category 'A' n4.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan .

7.8.2000 n4.75

¶3Bawana

7.8.2000 ?14.75 for Category 'A' ^14.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.9.2000 '^14.835 for .Category 'A' n4.46413 for -Category 'B' LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters ' \ Vo

¶5Narela

2.5.2001 ^16.165, for Category'A' - ns.76087 for Category 'B' 6-Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' -^6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶7. Alipur

22.8.2001 ?16.745 for Category'A'. ?16.43 811 for Category's' 8: Holambi Khurd '

22.8.2001 ?

16.745; for Category 'A' .^16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Raja pur Kalan

22.8.2001 n6.745 . for , Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B' ,

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12ShahpurGarhi ' 23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan ,23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 ^18.65,5 . 15.. Sanoth

27.1.2003 ^19.4,35 for Category 'A' ?18,.94:912 for Category 'B' •n8.4753.9 for Category 'C .16. Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 ^-19;435 for Category 'A'- ^8.94912 for Category-'B' ^8.47539 for Category.'C

27.' In lai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time to time ,and found the same not to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.999/2010 & co;nnectedmatters Page 1.8 of 22 Government officers and haid found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions, of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Singh 1/5. UO! & Ann. 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander l/s. UOI: 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh 1/5. UO! and an unreported decision iri Lf.App.No.866/2005 I^ahender Singh l/s. UO! & Ors. decided , on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence lahd price was determined on various dates between the years 1993 to 1996 and in relation to the minimum price fixed by the Government 1 had highlighted in. paras 50 to 53 of the, said decision as under:- . "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding. paragraphs as also the various notifications; issued from time to time' by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by .me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990-' As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was T4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to nO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years arid 11.5% for the next year i.e.; as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to . urbanization,- between the year 1990 and 1997 prices ,grows fairly sharply and good corroborative for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in . Gairafs case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

¶51I, need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision , in Gairafs case. Discussing pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in ' ) village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedinatters • Page 19 of22 1/; I J • Court discussed valuation on basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was for multiple cropped land and having good ifrigatipn?facilitiesand thus capitalized the, land price at ^9.5 lakh? per acre. Discussfipgthe second' method of land prices of comparable jands in the , surrounding' areas, including potentiality/ in para onwards the Court.discussed the. matter with reference tO'. land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FC(!, Godowns had come up' and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit ofMndustrialization the land price would come to ?10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the prices notified by the Government as per policy

1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in when Government .'issued minimum price notification w.e.f. 1.4.19,97, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions Court found that as against the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was ?10,03,364/- per acre..

¶52The decision in Mahender Sinoh's case, pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above,, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, commercial industrial future exploitation , of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding Master -Plan so projecting lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality, evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date, of the notification with which Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana Holambi Kalan nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above, there is a gap between what would be ' expected to be:the market growth and what the. market actually grows. The decisions in Gairafs caise ..and LA.App.No;999/2010& connectedmatters Page20 of22 #- Mahender Singh's case highlight that potentiality . translated, itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about

16.5% per annum thereafter extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residehtial, . commercial industrial and, probably there. was enough'availability of developed land and the hunger .of the market got saturated. ; •

¶53The empirical in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference .Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have:with us the sale deed relied upon by learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 fair market value of agricultural lands would be ^19,16,040/-. per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha 13 biswa of land which was sold for , ^5,39,690/- and ^70,1.60/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ?6,09,850/- (?5,3.9,690/- + ?70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ^17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002. . . f • , : 28. In'the absence .of any co.gent evidence placed on record . by either parties other than the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that Learn'e^i Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up. the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified thfe date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters .. Section 4 of tine Land Acquisition Act and findingi no scope to furtlier enhance the compensation or to . reduce the same I dismiss all. appeals and cross.objections, whether filed by the land owners or the Union of India.

¶29Ijeave the parties to bear their own cost. • •. • 1, • > (PRADEEP NAMDRAJOG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm TT LA.App.No.:999/2010&connectedmatters , Page22 of22

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 639/2011 SIS RAM DECD THR LRS Appellants Through : Mr. N.S. Negl, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through : Mr. S.K. Pathak, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI