Union of India v. Rajeev Kumar & Ors

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm •II il . % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludqmentReservpdOn: 2011 11 //V/-//-V-I _ "TTT ^ % judgmentDeliveredOn: 19^'^September.?mi + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH UQI & ANOTHER & Ivir.Sa Nawani, -TK u . Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mr.DeepakKhosia,Advocate and . Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. /s. u n/. ^ Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate R, Mr Co.-,:-,,, _ ijay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K , . , , tjuua aiiu Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AN D + LA.APP. 961/2010, . No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100 LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA. LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM 7/2010 &CM No.15181/2011, APP. 1010/2010, LA.APP. 1036/2010&CM No.i2865/i011,U.A?P 5/2011 LA APP 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011 11, LA.APP. 89/2011, U.APP. LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. 246/2011,'LA.APP.- 24m011. t^.APP.- 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. LA.APP. 3.47/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 & Award No, 06/2002-2003,Viilage-BhalswaJahangirPuri) A^ D LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattdrs ifHi, v.' ffl m + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 244/2011, LA.APP. CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. /2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.l LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated

30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi lage-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whether the Reporters o1 to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporte

¶3Whether the judgment sh Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIQG. I.

¶1I proceed with an apolog notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir learned counsel for arguments with respect to the required price' to be suitab local papers may be allowed r or not? ould be reported in the / to the reader by referring to a Doint of time a^nd then to a t of time; but the reason is that land owners had addressed notification issued later and had y reduced pertaining to notificationwhich was issued e|arlierin pointof time.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 jbigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmatllers Page 2 of22 l;:j| % to a notification dated

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation ofJJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai land at ?2,87,916.66 per big!" lakhs per acre i.e. fair market at?13.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with the 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.ll2A/2008 titled Raj Sinah l/s. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or n4,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market value of the acquired a, which is equivalent to ?13.82 i/alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed js the Learned Reference Court, ket value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price f6r agricultural land fixed by the Government as on 01.04.20(|0, notified vide Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destinations'were reached inasmuch as Acquisition Collector as well a while assessing the fair marl learned Land Acquisition compensation, did not grant x

01.04.2000 till the date notif Land Acquisition Act was is Collector, while assessing ppreciation for the period from ication under Section 4 of the sued on

15.09.2000, but .learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4,2000 and the pri:e ?13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App;No!999/2010 & comiected mail:ers Page 3 of22 xj fll

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired p under Section of the Lar

30.07.1998, for the same put JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisition bearing No.18/2000-01 dat assessed fair market v ^2,33,333 per bigha which is acre.

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land ursuant to a notification issued d Acquisition Act 1894, dated lie purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of by a declaration under Section 1998. After following the due Collector announced an award ed

12.03.2001,. whereby he alue of the acquired land at equivalent to ?11.20 lakhs per owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.11 lA/2008 titled Chandrawati 1/9. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^11,46,670/- per acre. The difference i in destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated

25.7.1997 and same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. lollector adopting the land rate with effect from

1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement] @ 11% per annum for the interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment rr well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmat:ers A '•1. i,:! Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned above.

¶8On behalf of the land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance w£s placed on following documentary evidence:-

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

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by :hibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in "esidential and commercial 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 jahangir Puri,, was fixed eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards developmentc(j)st, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of ^1,17,96,200/- per acre. at^5830/- per square rr acre and it was urgec

(b) The rate charged commercial plot in Sanja> terms of the Resolution by MCD for allotment of ! Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby. MCD decided to allot developed plots to the square meter and Exhi Resolution No,610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ?4,500/- per sqi transporters

(g) ?425/- per 3it PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying' on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters fin documents, learned cc argued that rate unsel for land owners stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, market value of developed i7/- per acre and it was urged ion is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair i market value would conhe to ?8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and incre:asingthe 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 and 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying would evidence that fai land comes to ^17,19,85 that even if 50% deducti on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met ranging between ^23.72 according to. learned col pertaining to the year 2006, " the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square •e in Jahangir Puiji at a price lakh to ^28.4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of n4,36,36,363 per acre and 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-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ ^32,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/- or ?11,£6,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected niat:ers V? m

¶9contended that this sale after making a reas deed should be relied upon, onable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricuit Jahangir Puri. Another. ural land in village B.halswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in Mamurpur was sold to R upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society '|Vj/s.Butterfly', w be sold on 05.08.1996 revenue estate of village adha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned counsel fcT the land owners also relied ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a hereund.er land was agreed to ?18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangir Puri and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of land in the said villageas of the date of the agreement to sell i.e. 5.8.1996. j Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of 40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given-on said value, the price as on the date of the notificationunderSection4 comesto-n,94,782per bigha, and thus it was argued that since in the,same village, it would price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt i:he price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010& comected matters aiR. m fixing market value of having a vast area. Learne learned Land Acquisition C market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 and Court.

¶10It may. be noted that when judgment was reserved in the 19^" August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition s.App.No.266/2008 titled /s/Sinah 1/5. UOI.&Ann in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to arguments of learned arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come-outin the depositionof Shri Trilok [HafqaPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah las explained the topology of the above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA submitted that in response counsel for the land owners 1/5 Union of India in which he f undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the 3llector has assessed fair price much higher than the one so has learned Reference area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex.PW-2/1of viliage Bhaiswa Jahangir Purl. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated, in ouid reveal that village Kadipur :he North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadii and Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puri. West and villages Bharola and n the South of. village Jahangir LA.App.No.999/2010 & comiectedmatters "TT'v iil \

¶12I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published by Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa JahangirPuri is situated on t-h^ eastern side of G.T.KarnalRoad i.e. NationalHighwayNo.l. vjiliagesBadii, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, MamoorDur.(Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangirPuri, post :1s in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to. urbanization was of a weak acquisition of agricultural Ian village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah \/s. Union nf /ndia 1998 {M) J\D (Delhi) ^81, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c

¶76It has to be remembered were also for re-settlement of.: it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had f emergency i.e. the year 1975-that the two subject acquisitions lum and J.J.Clusters.

¶14-The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 /^/5//7^/7 Vs. um ^ Ann which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment,has since been pronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that v\hile assessing the fair market value of the land situated in :.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-Wes villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar and Bawana, I had noted t t Delhi being revenue estate of Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010& comiectedmaliers Page 9 of22 f) constituted a 'V at tfie point of intersection where G.T.Karnal .Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point,, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi iviandi. It needs to be highlightedthat villageBhalswaJahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesciidand as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-l. o the said 10 villages where land ifferent nQtifications issued from

¶15In the. appeals relating t were acquired pursuant to d time to time I had dealt with notificationsissued in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) and safe deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove.

3.8.2011, I have discarded these IS recorded in paragraphs 21 to unden-In the said judgment dated 2 two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced here

¶21The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh is predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter ^63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that, the the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale purchased by a religious trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledgethe land was purchased for religiouspurposeand was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010'&connectedmatters been held not to be rel fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S reasoning it was purchcised by a Non Government Organization" and as per ister Annie, the secretary of pay the price for the sai only plot of the requ the organization stated that the organization had to d piece of land as it was the site size suitable for requirementof the orgainizationand is being used for destitute women circumstance, personal t

¶22As held in the dec sions reported as 1995 (1) sec .717 Land Acquisition Officer E/uru ^ Ors. l/s. .e. there was o the vendee. a special jstiRoiiini&Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC iWoiici. Raufuddin V^. Land Acquisition Offirpr ansactions evidenced in a ilered in evidence by virtue A.Act 1894 have not to be (Refer para 13) sale tr sale deed which are ten of Section 51A of the L: ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market v reason there may alue of land in an area for . . , , ^ be special circumstances which have led the buyerto pay a higherprice. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influejnced by any special circumstancesor the fancy to buy a particularpiece of land. Anjnformed buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himselfof all available land in the area; has understood the topologyof the area anc the prevailingprices. If a ^articular piece of land, he 3rice and this would not be buyer'has a fancy for a , may pay a much higher a good index of fair mark area. I would be failing i Union of India had relied

20.5.2002, which was et value of the lands in the I do not highlight that the upon the sale deed dated accepted by learned ReferenceCourt pertainingto the notificationdated

27.1.2003 where-underagriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. ^17,74,109/- per acre as against price which comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre for Ex.PV LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatte for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 V-l/B. The 2 ,sale deeds rs > r ri; Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 intrinsic evidence of the destroy each other. j>, themselves are having fanciful price and ex-facie

¶23Thus, apart from t le reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with \(vhich I concur, afore-noted reasons in para a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc — w., .w * reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported bove would be additional sale deeds would ^— evidence wherefrom fair market value of subjec; lands can be determined and more so for the reason. Ifind that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisitionis of such large an area, it would make all the more a ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result . I would be failing not to ecision cited by learned

19.12.2008 disposing o matter being LA.App.N (since, deceased) thru / counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya, Deing the decision dated ' a batch of appeals, lead

0.193/2006 PraiaD Sinnh Rs Vs. UP! & Ors. It was highlightedthat the sale deed,therein by which L&T had purchased8 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 and 1^ ^ ^ . hence price reflect treated as ,a good evide area, was rejected by t question, with suitable d parcel of land being la Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th market value. The argur in the decision of the Div 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed or of the market value, bt therein was reduced by would be the same as wo :ed. therein could not be ice of value of land in the le Court and the price in eduction on account of the •ge, was accepted by the le instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair lent ignores the reasoning ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative t found that if the price 1/3'^ the price arrived at Jld 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&connectedmatteb f • produced by the Govern ^1,37,000/- per bigha which L&T.had purchas from the sum of ^3,26 highlighted that in the sale was-1993 a Section of the Land ment were giving a price of and sale deed under ed. 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 ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'^ would be deducted ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995 and

16.11.1995 and Court determined fair marl<et 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 for if it was so, appreciation for 2 given. I would highligl" hereinbefore already contradiction in the vak years had required to be t once again, that 1 have noted | inherent e of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsicmutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."

¶16For the reasons therein, present case also as r determine fair market value Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. j

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the I reject these two sale deeds in Bliable and good evidence to of agricultural land in village a jahangir Puri has been agreed f ns lakhs per acre. The land land situated in village Bhalsw to be transferred for a sum o owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003whereunder4-16tiigha i.e. 1acre land was sold at ^5,70,000/-.

¶18Now, 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 & connected matters % difficult to comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzlethat in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ^15.7 lakhs per acre. I ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph of its decision, learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ned that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer and without being influenced by particular land, and had thus

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 informed and there being a s have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with an informed willing seller and special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. i issue in my decision dated 008 iai Sin oh Vs. UP! & Anr. i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller being well-pecial feature qua the land and good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reite •ate the same.

¶20As regards auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in, the argumen land owners and concur wit Transport Nagar, 1 do not find ts of the learned ^counsel for the h the decision Of the learned ReferenceCourtcontained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premisedoh the decisionof th^ SupremeCourt reportedas La! LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mattors iiTI % Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769.; Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the evidence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats'by DDA.

¶21In my decision dated

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh Vs. UOi & Ors., I hcd extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Ciourt in Lai Chands case, with reference to price at which ceveloped. plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and D5IDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 (3f the decision in laiSinah's case are extracted hereunder:-

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

¶30It is no doubt true, Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area and Narela Residential S acquired a building p would be what would building potentiality wou most unreliable to determine jbject cases. - as held even by the learned with development of Rohini Residential Scheme :heme, the subject lands had otentiality, but question be value to which Id translate itself.

¶31I hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the SupremeCourt in La! Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, tp deal with the same while 1 shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. , LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters ID m

¶22Highlighting that in La/ Chancfs case (supra) I • Supreme Court held that sucli raw data was meaningless and was too . inchoate wherefrom fair marl<et value could be crystallized.

¶231reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DG for charging unearned increase when lea:;e-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to deve:loped plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for Rohini ResidentialScheme,1negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^ 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topologyof th(i area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC : village Burari is on the east of NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village, Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil and Burari are separated by t towards iviubarka Chowk frc colony adjoining the famous and indeed plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri he outer ring road as we travel m Tibetan Re-settlement 3urudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 &. coimected matters thus the fair market value otj land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable. market value of the land situated acquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of had considered material on my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of. LA.Appeals, lead matter being LA. Appeal No.97.1/2008titled Rdibd!& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60

¶26While assessing the fair •in village Burari, which was e dated

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, record i.e. evidence in acre for Category B land. Ir assessed the fair market value d assessed the fair market value ,580.82 per acre for Category A land, no,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464.65per acre for Category C land pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuantto notification dated 18.07.200!; had been assessed by me at ^19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ^7,28,512/-per •iai Sinail's case {supra), I had of land in 10 villages as under:- S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8. 2000 ?14.75 for Category 'A' n4.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 z) ^ ' ^ ^4.75

¶3Bawana

7.8. I •1 i t 2000 n4.75 for Category 'A' n4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.c .2000 ^14,835 for .Category 'A' ,^4.46413 for Category 'B' EA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters in) '

¶5Narela

2.5i.2001 fl6.165 , for Category 'A' ns.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan 22,,8.2001 n6.745 for , Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Cateqorv 'B'

¶7Alipur

¶228.2001 ?16.745 for Category 'A' ; ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 ^

16.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Cateqorv 'B' -10. Sanoth

7.12.2001 ^7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶14Alipur

¶235.2002 as.655

¶15Sanoth

¶27j

1.2003 ^9.435 for Category 'A' ?18.94:912 for Category 'B' ?18.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Kalan

27.: L.2003 a9.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ?18.47539 for Cateqorv 'C

27.' In /af Sinah's case fqii —i ^ ( pra) 1 had also analyzed minimum land rates enhanced by the Governmentfrom time not to be the ipse dixit of the to time, and found the same LA.App.No.999/2010 8c. cojmected matters Government officers and liad 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 Sinah 1/5. UP! & Ml., 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Ks. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.l\lo.866/2005 Mahendbr Sinah l/s. UO! & Qrs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence various dates between the years :o the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under;- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in. the preceding land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t paragraphs as also the • time to time by the Go^ various notifications issued from /ernment of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricdilturallands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above b ing out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Del from the year 1990. As ?4.65 lakhs per acre whi of 1.4,1997 i.e. the incre hi over the years commencing of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ch rose to ^10 lakhs per acre as ase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054%increase in 7 years and the averageprice increasewould be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of. 1.4.2001. It. shows that due to urbanization," between the year 199C sharply and good corrot be the decision of the Gairai"s case (supra), wh above.

¶51^ i need to elaboratea little more with respectto the decision in GajraJs case. Discussing.the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in paras'9 to 17 and 1997 prices grows fairly orative evidence' for this would Division Bench of this Court in ich 1 have discussed in para 49 LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters rr. % Court discussed valuation on basis of agriculturalyield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,00C/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigationfacilities and thus capitalizedthe land price at ^9.5 lal<hs per acre. Discussingthe second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and. giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to no,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered.the prices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated

1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/-per acre for Category 'A' lands and t9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as ags that the potentiality had been Government issued on w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at no lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the pric was fl0,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in MchenderSinoh's case, pertaining to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for ••ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court.\A^hich was projecting residential, commercial and indulstrial future exploitation of agriculturalland in Delhi|and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding Master Plan so. projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality,the same h|ad not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential, para 49 above there is LA.App.No;999/2010 & connected matters As 1 have already highlighted in a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in Gatraj's caise and /rf'- M' \ Mahender Sinah's • cR.qp highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990. and 1997 when prices rose by about 16,5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momdntum 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 residential, corrimercial and indus|trial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evic ence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the;land owners, in respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely rned Reference Court has given , , upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fane ful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have vi/ith us the sale deed relied upon by the 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 and 13 biswa of land which was .sold for ^5,39,690/- and ?70,160y mean that ?6,09,850/- '- was paid as stamp duty would {?5,39,690/- -F ^^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price n7,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e." 20.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by eitherpartiesotherthan the minimum price notified by the Government from' time to time, I hold that Learned ReferenceCourt has rightly adopted the correct principleand has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between the dates when minimum prices were notified and. the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters V. % Section 4 of the Land Acquis further enhance the compe dismiss all appeals and cross land owners or the Union of

¶291leave the parties to ition.Act and finding no scope to hsation or to reduce the same I objections, whether filed by the dia. their own cost. In SEPTEIVIBER19, 2011 mm bear LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatte:rs —I—- ' (PRADEEP iMANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-68 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 382/2011 ^ UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus RAJEEV KUMAR & ORS Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG