Union of India v. Vinod Kumar and Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm ii (F o * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ludament Rp'- ludament Qpih/pfed On: 19^ September. ?m i •erved On: 19^ August Pf) 7 7 + L^.APP. CM No.6549/]2 RAJ SINGH Through: Mr.B.S. Mf.Deeij) Mr.N.S. 999/2010 & Oil (Cross-Objection) ••• . Appellant lyiann, Advocate ak Khosia, Advocate and Negi, Advocate. Vs. UOI& ANOTHER Through: Mr.Sanjc & Mr.Sa Nawani; Kaomud ... Respondents y Poddar, Senior Advocate ijay Kumar Pathal<, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K i Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AND + LA.APP. 961/2010, . No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100liA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM 7/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, 1010/2010, LA.APp! 1036/2010 & CM No.12865/ Oil, L7\.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP.' 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/201] 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 3J3J2QX^U^P. 386/2011 397/2011 F07/2011. & CM 11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 347/2011, LAAER U.APP. 387/2011jCTAAPp! U.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 & Award No. 06/2002-2003,VilLage-BhalswaJahangirPuri) A^ D LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 1 of22 o o + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 83/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 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 (Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whether the Reporters of to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporte

¶3Whetherthe judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

¶1I proceed with an apolog notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir learned counsel for arguments with respect to the 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. 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 3W2011 & CM No.15194/2011, 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, UX.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. Sec. dated

30.07.1998 & lage-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) local papers may be allowed r or not? / to the reader by referring to a Doint of time then to a t of time; but the reason is that land owners had addressed notification issued later and had required price to, be suitably reduced pertaining to the notification which was issued earlier in point of time.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/20108c connectedmatlers Page 2 of22 ft >c ' <r to a notification dated

15.09 2000 issued under Section of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster', t his was followed,by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17,04.2001. After f9llowing the due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigh lakhs per acre i.e. fair market at ^'IB.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the 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 ^alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed ssessment made by Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. the Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter, being LAC N D.li2A/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

¶4It needs to be highlighte Acquisition Collector as well e while assessing the fair marl ^14,56,963 per acre. d that both i.e. the learned Land s the Learned Reference Court, :et value of the acquired land. adopted the minimum price f6r agriculturalland fixed by the Government as on

01.04.20C

11.09.2011. Different destina' the learned Land Acquisition compensation, did not grant e 0, notified vide Circular dated :ions were reached inasmuch as Collector, while assessing ppreciation for the period from

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was iskued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court gra ited appreciation for the said period of 165 days (g) 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 & connected mat):ers Page 3 of22 IB m

¶5Another parcel of Ian situated in same reve i ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, Tue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section of the Lard Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster', This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior Acquisition Collector, the land by a declaration under Section 1998. After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, whereby he, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalent to m.20 lakhs per acre. .

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land, owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The liearned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.11 1A/2008 titled Chandrawati 1/9. Union ofIndia, assessedthe fkir marketvalue of the acquired land at ^11,46,670/- per cicre. 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 same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. Collector 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, ^ 11% per annum for Court granting enhancement 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& connectedmatj;ers Page 4 of22 Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned above.

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

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

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by Tibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in residential 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 Bhal^swajahangirPuri, was fixed eter or ?2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development cdist, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of Tl,17,96,200/- per acre. at.^5830/- per square n-acre and. it was urgec

(b) The rate charged commercial plot in Sanja; terms of the Resolutlor (Exhibit PW-i3/l), where developed plbts to the square meter Exhib Resolution No,610 dated I decided to aljot the plots Nagar @ ?4,50O/- per sqi material and^ good evid by MCD for allotment of f Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated

23.11.1987 by MCD decided to allot transporters @ t425/- per it PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be ence. Relying on th.ese V LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters Page 5 of 22 . documents, learned counsel for land owners argued that rate stated in resolutions aforenoted,which was Applicablefor the year 1976, " market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deductionis made on accountof the r undeveloped lands, fair le to ^8,59,928/- per acre in would evidence that fai land comes to ^17,19,85 development costs, fc market value would con the year 1976 and increasingthe same by 12% per •annum, the fair market be ?24,76,592/- per acre

(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on the Rohini Residential Scher 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/: on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav va\ue as of 15.9.2000 would for land owners also auction record of plots in ne in the year 1997-98 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, "the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between T23.72 according to. learned col lakh to ^28,4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of ^4,36,36,363 per acrd 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 under land measuring 2-19 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes 6,169/- per bigha. It was (Exhibit PW-15/1), where bigha was sold

(g) ?3 learned counsel urged th to ?56,93,163/- or m,£ LA.App.No.999/2010 cfe connected mat:ers •'liT'! I contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, after mal<ing a reasonable deduction towards

¶9development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another. (Exhibit PW-15/2), whe bigha situated in Mamurpur was sold to R a price of ^26,75,000/- pi

(e) Learned .counsel fc upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o' the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay , appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir ermine the fair market value ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 reby land measuring 4-16 revenue estate of village adha Swami Satsang Vyas at 3r acre was also relied upon, r the land owners also relied ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a hereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996(b n8 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was In the revenue estate of Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^oddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-Q3 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of ?1,40,000and urged that even if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given on said value, notification under Section 4 co the price as on the date of the mes to ^1,94,782 per bigha, and thus It was argued that since price of similarland is available in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt i:he price of developed tand for LA.App.No.999/2010 connectedmati:ers P^e 7 of 22 n ifTTi m fixing the . marl<et value of having a 'vast area. Learne learned Land Acquisition C market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 Court.

¶10It may be noted that wh above captidned matters on been reserved for, judgment undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the 3llector has assessed fair price much higher than the one so has learned Reference len judghient was reserved in the 19*^^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition appeals, lead matter being LAlApp.No.266/2008titled iaiSinaii 1/5. UOi.&Anr. in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals learned senidr counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response' counsel for the land owners Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puri. .to, the arguments of learned the. arguments which he had advanced on the earlier oc[:asion may be treated as his response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Pun has come out in the depositionofShri Trilok Chand {Ha/gaPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LA(t No.ll2A/2008titled Raj Sinah 1/5 Union ofIndia in which he has explainedthe topologyofthe area while proving the Al<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa JahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated,in fhe North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the Eiast, villagesSamaipurBadii and West and villages Bharola n the South of village Jahangir LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 8 of22 -V

¶12I may additionally not^ that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory Government of NCT Delhi w of Delhi, published by Duld reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Pun is situated on the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Vi Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoor: side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangirPurl, post acquisition of agricultural Ian village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due llages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Dur (Narela) are on the western ds 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 nature. In the decision repofted as Amar Sinah l/s. Union nf India 1998 fV) AD (Delhi) A81, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c

¶76It has to be remembered 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 were also for re-settlement of,kiumandJ.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.^ Ann which was reserved on

0.266/2008 jai Sinah Vs. UOi &

12.8.2011 had yet to be pronouncedon 19.8.2011,when instant appeals were resen/ed 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 districti.e. North-WeJtDelhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Bawana, I had noted t Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, , Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatlers ft m constituted a 'V at the point of intersection where G.T.Karna! Road i.e. NH-1 Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be highligiitedthat villageBhalswaJahangir Puri is outsidethe 'V aforesaidand as explainedhereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1. 0 the said 10 villages where land ifferent notifications 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 sale deed dated .24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel fon: reliance upon as noted in sut land owners have placed -para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In. the said judgmentdated'26.8.2011,I have discardedthese 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 per the former, fair m£ comes to ?26.75 lakhs T63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected IS recorded in paragraphs 21 to under:- is predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4.2001. As rket value for the former per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was js trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while that to his knowledge tf-religious purpose and wa deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had'stated e land was purchased for s being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has lil<ewjse LA.App.No.999/20I0&connectedmatters Page10 of22 a irs m '.iv /.sVfiviJv been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S Organization" as per ister Annie, the secretary of pay the price for, the sal only plot of the requ the organization stated that the organization had to di piece of land as it was the site 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 dec see . 717 Land Acauisiti Isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer Mohd. Raufuddin sions reported as 1995 (1) on Officer Efuru & Ors. l/s. para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 1^5". Land Acquisition Officer ansactions evidenced in a dered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the LA.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an. exemplar sale deed to ^lue of land in an area for be special circumstances • to pay a higher price. The ich a well informed willing (Refer para 13) sale tr sale' deed which are ten determine the market v reason there may' which have led the buye true test is the price wh buyer would pay to an Equally well informedseller without being influe circumstances or the fan of land, Ar^ informed bL studied the market and need by any special :y to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all topology of the area and 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 available land in the area; has understood the the prevailing prices. If a Darticular piece of land, he Drice and this would not be et value of the lands in the f Ido not highlightthat the • upon the sale deed dated accepted by learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated

27.1.2003 where-underAgricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan.was sold agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. ^17,74,109/- per acre as against th ?63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre for Ex.PV LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matte e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 V-1/3. The 2 sale deeds by an agriculturist to an ITS fiiHs H Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-intrinsic evidence of destroy each other. 13, themselves are having fanciful price and ex-facie

¶23Thus, apart from t Reference Court, with reasons in para a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc market value of subjec le reasoning of the learned vhich I concur, afore-noted bove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair t 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 t)e circumspect on sale deeds having transaction being the result . I would be failing not to ecision cited by learned Deing decision dated \ a,, batch of appeals, lead

0.193/2006 Pratap Sinoh intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya

19.12.2008 disposing matter being' LA.App.^ (since deceased) thru Lrs l/y. IJO! ^ Ore it was highlighted that the sale had purchased 8 bigha land for expansion of i ignored by the learnec ground that L&T had a 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 tl-market value. The argur in the decision of the Di\ 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed on deed, therein by which L&T and 9 biswa of agricultural :s factory which had been Reference Court on the ancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evideficeof value of land in the he Court and the price in Bduction on account of the :ge, was accepted by the ie instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair nent ignores the reasoning ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative of the market value, bilt found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3^^ the price arrived at would be the same as would be price arrived at with reference to the averagb rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters fSi produced by the Govern ?1,37,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas iment were giving a price of sale deed under :2d the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which Wijs near about the price of f 1/3'"'^ would be deducted >,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of id notification under Acquisition Act was dated ^2,15,160/- per bigha, from the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 1993 a Section

¶4of the Land

24.7.1995 16,11.1995 Court determinedfair market|alueas of the said datesat same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other Words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not t6 be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore - aiready^ vnoted inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence 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 and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.

¶17As regards the agreementto sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the a Jahangir Puri has been agreed f ?18 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

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ?15,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ?15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters m difficult to comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ^18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that 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 39 of its decision, the learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has dp special considerations n informed willing buyer . without being influenced by particular land, and had thus

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where ah abnormally high p ned that the said price was for Dt the price settled between an an informed willing seller special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefr^omfair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed, i issue in my decision dated 008 lai S/nah l/s. UP! & Anr. i.e. ice for a parcel of land is with evidence, of neither the buVer nor the seller being well-informed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with 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; 1reite •ate the same. 20, As regards.auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen Transport Nagar, I do not find ts of the learned counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned ReferenceCourt containedin paragraphs29 and 30 which are premised on the decision of th 2 Supreme Court reported as La! LA.App.No.999/20108c connectedmatters Page 14 of 22, m Chand I/5. Union of India 2009 (15) 5CC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots or flats by jvidence relating to auction rates DDA.

¶21Jn my decision dated

23.8.2011 in lJ\.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinail Vs. UOl & 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 DSIDC. Relevant obsen/ations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in laiSinah's case are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now, we do not h^ve evidence as to what was the extent of plotted lard sold by DSlDCfor DDA with reference to the Bawana industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai .jesidentialScheme developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same Der which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as the value of land in the s jbject cases. most unreliable to determine

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

¶311hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping in view the observatioh and the findings of the SupremeCourt in La! Chands,case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence reliable. On the issue of potentialityrelating itsel" to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, tb deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the landa. LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters •p. • ® 'w- ,-V, 'V • •

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chands case (supra) Supreme Court held that sucli raw data was meaningless and was too . inchoate wherefrorn fair market value could be crystallized.

¶23. I reiterate the reasoning allotted developed plots in Sa price at which DDA sold dev reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I r to hold that price at which MCD ijay Gandhi Transport Nagar and ^eloped plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when leaie-hold property under LStDO 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 La! Chancfs ca:5e (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed discarded with where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhancedwith referencito L&DO rates noting that Iam 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 ) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village . Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil and Burari are separated by t towards Mubarka Chowk frc colony adjoining the famous : village Burari is on the east of and indeed the 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&connectedmatters ffli thus the fair market value of two villages would be compar

¶26While assessing the fair land on a particular date in the able. market value of the land situated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuant to notifications dated

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I notification dated

24.7.1998'. notification dated

18.07.2002 n9,20,568/-per acre for CateporyAland and ^7,28,512/-per lai. Singh's case {supra), I had 2003 issued under Section 4 of had considered material on record i.e. the evidence iri my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of LAi/ippeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. I/5. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60 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 Cafiegory C land pertaining to the I The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at acre for Category B land. In assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages as under:- S.No. Village Name Dat unc e of Notification er Section ; Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8. 2000 ?14.75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 ^4.75

¶3Bawana

7.8. ! 2000 ^14.75 for Category 'A' n4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd US .2000 m.835 for .Category 'A' n4.46413 for Category 'B' EA.App.No.999/2010& comectedmatters m flTf' .5. Narela

2.5 .2001 ^16.165 , for Category'A' n5.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan 22, 8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶7Alipur

¶228.2001 ^6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 ?

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

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' ^16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ?18.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.^.2002 n8.655

¶14Alipur.

23.5.2002 T18.655

¶15Sanoth •V"

¶271.2003 n9.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Ka ah

27.; L.2003 ?19.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category 'C pra) I had alsO: analyzed by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit oi the

¶27In lai Singh's case (su minimum land rates enhancec to time and found tfie same LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters Government officers and had 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 AC' Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah \/s. UO! & Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Rhm Chander 1/5. UOl. Ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah l/s. {JO/ and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah i/5. UP! & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t paragraphs as also the • time to time by the Go various dates between the years ;p the minimum pricefixed 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 various notifications issued from /ernment of NCT Delhi notifying by me in para 7 above b minimum pricefor agrici|ilturallands in Delhi as tabulated ing out two very important facts - — — ^ • WXX w >-i Jf I I I I I UU I I L lUULO relevant to determine tthe growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Del from the year 1990. As rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years as of

1.4.2001. It sh between the year 199C sharply and good corrot be the decision of the Gairais case (supra), wf above. Ti over the years commencing _ , , of 27.4.1990 minimum price was T4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to no lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997i.e. the increaseis/?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054%increasein 7 years and th^ averageprice increasewould be 16.436%. The price r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11,5% for the next year i.e. ows that due to urbanization, and, 1997 prices grows fairly orative evidence for this would Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49

¶51I need to elaborate decision in Gairais ca a little more with respect to the Se. Discussing evidence pertaining to fair markeit value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters ,•€!) m Court discussed t he valuation on basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,00q/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation racilities and thus capitalized land price at ^9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in surrounding areas including potentiality, in para onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoinirlg village Bhorgarh where FCl Godowns had come uij) and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to ^10,03,364/- per acre (liefer para 31). The Court theh considered,the prices notified by the Government as 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^9,51,121/- 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 aga that the potentiality had been Government issued Dn w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ^10 laktis'per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the pric2 was ?10,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in Mc'benderSinoh'^ case, pertaining to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court v\ commercial indu agricultural land in Delhi had noted that notwit projecting la potentiality, the same h "ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential, strial ^future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality nstanding Master Plan so nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality evidencedby the fact th;it 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 He exploited the potential. ' para 49 above there is, expected to be the mark if* 'I Iambi Kalan and nobody had As 1 have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in Gairafs caise and LA.App.No;999/20r0& connectedmatters •T) (Tf Mahender Singh's • ca translated itself into a when prices rose by 5e highlight that potentiality reality between 1990 and 1997 about 16,5% per annum thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to betweeh 10% per annunp to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant fairly large area came t to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a :p be developed, both residential, comrnercial industrial probably there was enough availabilityof developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evic ence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds reilied upon by the land owners, in rned Reference Court has given upon and for which 1have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair marketvalue, we have with 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 of agricultural lands would be n9,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for ^^39,690/-and ?70,16D/-was paid as stamp duty would (?5,39,690/- + ?70,160/-) were ice ^17,74,109/- per acre as of

0.5.2002. respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in para mean that ^6,09,850/. spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e.,2

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than th e minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that the Learned ReferenceCourt has rightly adoptedthe correctprincipleand has relied upon the correctevidenceand has given the correct appreciationsby suitablyincreasingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date cif the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters o Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cros^ objections,whetherfiled by the land owners or the Union of India.

¶29Ileavethe partiesto bekrtheirown cost. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters b-3 (PRADEEPJMANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-72 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 394/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus VINOD KUMAR AND ANR Respondents Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG