Union of India v. Sushma Pahwa and Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mnn INTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . % ludament Res erved On: 19^ August 2011 ludament Dei ivered On: 19^^ September. 2011 + RAJ SINGH U\.APP. CM No.6549/^ UOI & ANOTHER Through: Mr.Sanjc & Mr.Sa Nawani, Kaomud 999/2010 & Oil {Cross-Objection) Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate Mr.Deepak KhosIa, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. fs. ... Respondents y Poddar, Senior Advocate ijay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1 ' AND t + LA.APP. 961/2010, lU.APP. 1001/2010 & CM No.12885/2011,LA.APP. 100l7/2010&CM No.15181/2011, LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.KpP. 1010/2010, LA.APP. 1036/2010 & CM No.12865/2011, IJ\.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP. 6/2011 & CM No.6756/20il, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM No.6740/2011,LA.APP. 41/2C)ll, LA.APP. 89/2011, UX.APP. 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/201ll LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP. 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/201]J, LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP. 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/201ll, LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. 394/2011, lA.APP. 397/2OI1I, LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. 407/2011. I , (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated

15.09.2000 & Award No. 06/2002-2003,Vill^ge-BhalswaJahangirPuri) AK D LA.App.No.999/2010 8c connected matters V + 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. 245/ LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No. LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 39^2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 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, 8/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, 15182/2011, 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 Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whether the Reporters o1] local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reportejr or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? | PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. | ^Sec.

30.07.1998 & iage-Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri)

¶1I proceed with an apology to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in 3oint of time then to a notification issued prior in point of time; but 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 BhaiswaJahangirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters to a notification

15.09 2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely. 'Reliabilitation of JJ Cluster'. T his 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 Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, ir market value of the acquired I land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigha, 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 Nb.ll2A/2008 titled Raj Singh Vs. 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 Acquisition Collector as well as the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price f|)r agriculturalland fixed by the Government as on

01.04.2000, notified vide Circular

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

01.04.2000 till the date notifjicatlon under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was i^jsued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% pir annum with referenceto the base date 1.4.2000 and the price ^13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters V

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in 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 Acquisitior bearing No.18/2000-01 da assessed fair market \ ^2,33,333 per bigha is acre. I

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

12.03.2001, whereby he alue of the acquired land at equivalent to ^11.20 lakhs per ssessment made by Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. ^The [Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.l]lA/2008 titled Chandrawati I/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^11,46,670/- per acre. The difference : in same reason as noted notification

15.9.2000 i.e. lollector adopting the land rate with effect from

1.4.1997 vide destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular

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

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment m @ 11% per annum for well as land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mati;ers 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 b^ the L&DO vide notification

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

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

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot transporters @ ^425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be develpped plots to the square meter Exhi Resolution No.610 decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ?4,500/- per sqi material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters l\ documents, learned co argued that rate unsel for land owners stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fai land comes to ?17,19,85 that even if 50% deducti development costs, fo - marl<et value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made on account of the r 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 placed reliance on the Rohini Residential Sche for land owners also auction record of plots in e in the year 1997-98 f 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-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 X23.12 lakh to ^28.4 lakh, according to learned coinsel translates to a price of ^14,36,36,363 per acre counsel urged that I 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 @ ^3 learned counsel urged th 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 c& connectedmatters contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, after mal<ing a reasonable deduction towards development co^ to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Purl. Another. ermine the fair market value ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- p ^r 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 executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of land-in the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996.

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay , appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2: in village Bhalswa Jahangir date of the agreement to sell Poddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of n,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 in the same village, it would adjoining village or to adopt price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the he price of developed tand for LA.App.No.999/2010 connected matters P^ge 7 of22 fixing market value of undeveloped agricultural land having a vast area. Learn^ counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed fair price much higher than the one so has learned Reference market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 Court.

¶10It may be noted that wh above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA submitted that in response counsel for the land owners advanced on earlier oc en judgment was reserved in the 19^^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition App.No.266/2008 titled lai Singh Vs. UO! & Ann in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to arguments of learned the arguments he had lasion may be treated as his response. ;

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand {Halqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in IJ\C No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5 Union of India in which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the Al<5 Sikra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. His testimony Would reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated in |;he North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badii and Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola Sarai Pipaithala are situated ^n the South of village Jahangir Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters • >

¶12I may additionally note that lay out plan of the •i National Capital' Territory Government of NCT Delhi w Jahangir Puri is situated on th i.e. National Highway No.l. V Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoor of Delhi, published by Duld reveal that village Bhalswa B eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road illages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Dur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development ate of village Jahangir Puri, post took place in the revenue es acquisition of agricultural Ian village was for re-settlement ids in the revenue estate of said. of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the character of urbanization in jthe area was of a kind where potential price increased due; to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah Vs. Union of India1998 (V) AD (Delhi)4<5'i,|itwas noted thatthere existeda resettlement colony called Jahangir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period c

¶76It has to be remembered were also for re-settlement of;

¶14The decision in LA.App.^ Ann was reserved on f emergency i.e. the year 1975-that the two subject acquisitions slum and J.J.Clusters. O.266/2008 iai Sinah 1/5. UOi &

12.8.2011 had yet to be pronouncedon 19.8.2011,wh^n instantappealswere reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-Wes villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu t Delhi being revenue estate of " Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted tjiat the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 9 of22 • M I; !i ^ 11 I; ' I constituted a 'V at tine point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 Rolntal< Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a common point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi iviandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesciid and as explained hereinabove and abuts towards the east ot NH-1.

¶15In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were 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 the sale deed

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/ 1) sale deed

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted, in suti-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasohs recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh per the former, fair m£ comes to ?26.75 lakhs ^63.478 lakhs per acre Court has rejected evidence to determine agricultural lands, for all reasoning that the 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 sale deeds as reliable market value of fair the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religioijs trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who 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 religious purpose. The sale deed Ex:.PW-l/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmattcirs Page 10of22 A, been held not to be rel fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on reasoning it was purcha&ed by a Non Government Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated pay the price for the sai only plot of the requ Organization" as per ister Annie, the secretary of ;hat the organization had to h 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 decisions reported as 1995 (1) see 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. isti Rohini & Anr (Refer i^oiid. Raufuddin I para 6) and 2009 (14) See ^5. Land Acquisition Officer ansactions evidenced in a (Refer para 13) sale tr sale deed which are ten dered in evidence by virtue of Section 5lA of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to deterniine the market Jalue of land in an area for be special circumstances "to pay a higher price. The ich a well informed willing reason there may which have led the buye true test is the price ,wl* buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bi studied the market and available land in need by any special y to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all area; has understood topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he ^ price: and this would not be et value of the lands in the I do not highlight that the upon the sale deed dated 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, 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 ah agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price 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&connectedmattes e price comes to ror £x.PW-1/2 and ?28.89 7-1/3. The 2 sale deeds I Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PV\/-]./3, thennselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from t he reasoning of the Jearned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted bove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair market value of subjec: lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various reasons in para a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc awards nearly between have been acquired anc such large an area, it \ reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya

19.12.2008 disposing o matter being LA.App.h ,000 to 8,000 bigha of land when the acquisition is of vould make, all the more a ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result I would be failing not to ecision cited by learned Deing decision a batch of appeals, lead

0.193/2006 Pratap Sinah (since deceased) thru i\Rs Vs. UP! & Qrs. It was highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased8 bigha pnd 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learnecj Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fjancy for the said land and 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 laij-ge, was accepted by the Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th ^e instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Div ision'Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed or its own logic as indicative of the market value, bi^t found that if the price l/B'^ the price arrived at jjld be price arrivedat with reference to the averagb rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union df India i.e. the sale deeds therein was reduced by would be the same as wo LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatte'^ \'- produced by,the Govern ?1,37,000/- per bigha L&T had purchas ^2,15,160/- per bigha, from sum of^3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 1993 a Section of the Land

24.7.1995

16.11.1995 Court ment were giving a price of sale deed under sd the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/-which w^s near about the price of f 1/3'"'' would be deducted ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd notification under Acquisition Act was dated determined fair market \ alue as of the said dates at the. same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2.15,160/-. In other w ords, 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 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 tht^s itselfis intrinsicmutually destructiveevidenceof ):he 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."

¶16For the reasons therein, present case ' also as determine fair market value Bhalswa Jahangir Purl.

¶17As regards the agreem land situated in village Bhalsw to be transferred for a sum o owners have also relied

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 n5,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the price, as pe owners was ^15,70,000/- per I reject these two sale deeds in rjeliable and good evidence to of agricultural land in village ^nt to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the a Jahangir Purl has been agreed f ?18 lakhs per acre. The land on another sale deed bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at up r the own showing of the land acre as on

01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters difficult to, comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 is dated 8.4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ^18 Jakhs 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 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 an abnormally high p 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 3t the price settled between an an informed willing seller special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefr^om fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision 008 lai Sinah Ks. UP! & Ann i.e. ice for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither buyer nor the seller being well-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 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 hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reiterate the same.

¶20As regards auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandh Transport Nagar, I do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the land owners concur with the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Lai LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters -f. Chand l/s. Union of India 2009

(15) SCC 769. Similar is trie reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots or flats by

¶21In my decision lai Sinah 1/5. UP! & Ors.. I h£ vidence relating to auction rates DDA.

3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 d extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case with reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DDA an and findings in para 29 to 31 are extracted hereunder:- eveloped plots were allotted by d DSIDC. Relevant observations 3f the decision in iaiSingh's case

¶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 R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai esidential Scheme developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same 3er which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), 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 po would be what would buildingpotentialitywoul^d translateitself. I

¶31I hold that the learrhed ReferenceCourt, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence ^s reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itsel reader of the decision, t shall be discussing as market value of the lands most unreliable to determine jbject cases. as held even by the learned with development of Rohini Residential Scheme :heme, the subject lands had tentiality, but question be value to ' to the value, I promise the D deal with the same while I to what should be the fair LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matte rs

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chancfs case (supra) Suprenne Court held that such raw data was nneaningless was too inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be crystallized.

¶23I reiterate the reasoning allotted developed plots in Sa price at which DDA sold dev evidence was specifically reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I r of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village Bhalswa jahangir Purl would reveal that the two vil and Burari are separated by to hold that price at which MCD njay Gandhi Transport Nagar and eloped plots and flats would be irrelevant to deternnine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to price: notified by L&DO 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 developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of iliscussed discarded with where lands were acquired for egate 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 topology of the area and as per the testimony ) who appeared as PW-2 in 1J\C village Burari is on the east of indeed plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl he outer ring road as we travel towards Mubark^. Chowk from Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous iurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.

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

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I market value of the land situated cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of lad considered material on record i.e. evidence 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. Vs. Union of India & d assessed the fair market value

580.82 per acre for Category A land, ^10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land ^9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to notification dated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at ^9,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ^7,28,512/-per iai Singh's case [supra), I had of land in 10 villages as under:- Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land at ^11,60 acre for Category B land. Ir assessed the fair market value S.,No. Village.Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre) l.' Pooth Khurd

7.8. ,1 'i 2000 m.75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8.2000 J. n4.75

¶3Bawana t

7.8. ^000 n4.75 for Category 'A' n4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.c .2000 n4.835 for ,CategorV 'A' n4.46413 for Category 'B' LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters

¶5Narela V-

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

¶6Holambi Kalan

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

¶7Alipur

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 ?

16.745 for Category 'A' ^16.43811 for Category 'B' 9-Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.1R.2001 ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ^18.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.3.2002 n8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.^.2002 n8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶27L.2003 ^9.435 for Category 'A' ^8.94912 for Category 'B' ^18.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Ka an

27.;p003 n9.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

¶27\r[ lai Sinoh's case fsu minimum land rates enhancec to time and found the same pra) 1 had also analyzed :l by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit of the 9^ >• 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 AD Delhi 13 Gairai Singh Vs. UO/& Ml, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Rhm Chander Vs. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahendhr Sinah Vs. UO! & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006wherein based in sale deeds and otherevidence land price was determined on various dates between the years 1993 to 1996 and in relation tb the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:- "5,0. 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 cornmencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ^4:.65 lakhs per acre which rose to nO lakhs per acre as of 1.4,1997 i.e. the incre^aseis ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the averageprice increap 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 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), wl" above. and 1997 prices grows fairly orative evidence for this would Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49

¶511need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gajrafs case. Discussing evidence pertaining to fair markeit value of agricultural land in of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 village Holambi Kalan as LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mattexs Court discussed tlhe valuation on basis of agriculturalyield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,00g/-for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land priced of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwardsthe Courtdiscupedthe.matterwith referenceto land prices in adjoinir^g village Bhorgarh where PCI Godowns had come ufi) and based on sale instances found that based on thB said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to no,03,364/- per acre (fkefer para 31). The Court then considered,the prices notified by the Governmentas 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/- (ier 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 as of 1.4.1997 at ^0 laV highlighting that the pric 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 hs per acre, sale instances were 2 was no,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in Mahender Singh'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 agriculturalland 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 Division Bench was levelopment had taken place in Iambi Kalan nobody had As I have already highlighted in a g^p between what would be set growth and what the market decisions in Gairafs case of the notification with concerned, virtually no village Bawana He exploited,the potential, para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattes Mahender Singh's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a when prices rose by reality between 1990 and 1997 about

16.5% per annum thereafter extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration f^l to betweeh 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1^90 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial industrial probably there was enough availability of d(Bveloped land and the hunger of the m,arket got saturated.

¶53The empirical evic from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras relying upon, being fane ence in the instant case, apart rned Reference Court has given upon and for which I have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not ful sale deeds, to determine fair marketvalue, we have \|vith us the sale deed relied upon Acquisition Collector pursuant ices 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 a^ of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold for by learned Land whereto in some referer ^5,39,690/- and ?70,160 mean that ^6,09,850/- was paid as stamp duty would {^5,3^,690/- + ^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price tl7,74,109/- per acre as of the dgte of the sale i.e. 2 0.5.2002.

¶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 Learned Reference Court has rightly a Jopted the correct principle has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnumperiod between ijhe dates when minimum prices were notified date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters / t Section 4 of tine Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to furtfier enliance the compensation or to reduce the same 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 cost. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/20108c connectedmatters -T-r ' (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-75 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 399/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus SUSHMA PAHWA AND ANR Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG