Union of India v. Naveen Kumar Jain & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 i For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. -rr PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm If (0>' * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludament Reserved On: 19^" Aiinnc:^ 2011 ludament Df^r- ' - (vered On: September. ?nn LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH _r. ^ Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. UOI & ANOTHER Through: /s. Mr.Sanja & IVlr.Sa' Nawani, Kaomud • Respondents y Poddar, Senior Advocate njay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin 'Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AND + LA.APP. 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM IA LA.APP. 1007/2010&CM No.15181/2011, . 1009/2010, , LA.APP. 1010/2010, LA.APp' 1036/2010&CM No.12865/2011,LA.APP. 5/2011 LA APP 6/2011^& CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & « No.6740/2011, U.APP. 41/2C-142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. 11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/^ec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 & Award No, 06/2002-2003,Viilage-BlialswaJahangirPurl) AK D LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters r- + 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. 242/201 244/2011, 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. 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4jl4/2011. (Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi ^Sec. dated

30.07.1998 & iage-Bhaiswa Jainangir Puri) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

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

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

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

¶1I proceed with an apolog notification issued later in arguments with respect to the / to the reader by referring to a Doint of time and then to a notification issued prior in poirt of time; but the reason is that learned counsel for the 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 Bhaiswa jahaipgirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters ft Iflt to a notification dated

15.09 2000 issued under Section 4 of tiie 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 Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ?13.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market at ?13.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land >/alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed issessment made by 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 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 a s the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agriculturalland fixed by the Government as on

01.04.20C 0, notified vide Circular dated

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

01.04.2000.till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was ' issued on 15.09.2000, but the .learned , Reference Court gra ited appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the priz'e ^13,82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010 & coimected matj:ers 'IliTT /ll •• .5. Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 biglna, situated in tlie same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jaiiangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued I under Section 4 of the Land 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 Acquisition 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 equivalentto ^11.20 lakhs per acre.

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section.18 of the Act. The l.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/2008 titled Chandrawati l/cr. Union assessedthe fair marketvalue of the acquired land at m,46,670/- per. acre. The difference: in the destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the .the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25,7.1997 and question was issued on 30.7.: Court granting enhancement interregnum period.

¶1The Union of India as challenged the assessment m 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 998 and the learned Reference @ 11% per annum for well as the land owners have s ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatiers Court by way of tl^e appeals above.

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

(a) The rate,notified bj/ the L&DO vide notification libit 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 at.^5830/- per square meter 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 ^1,17,96,200/- per acre. dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by

(b) The rate charged commercial plot in Sanja^ terms of the Resolutior and cross objections mentioned 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

(a) ?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 , material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 5 of22 i;] documents, learned ,co argued that rate unsel for land owners stated in the - resolutions aforenoted, which was Applicablefor the year 1976, • market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped "lands, fair market value would con^e 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 would evidence that fai land comes to ^7,19,85 on the brochure of DDA it was-argued that as pe were held, qua flats hav for land owners also auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, • the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square mkre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ?23.72 according to. learned col ^14,36,36,363 per acre suitable deduction col bigha was sold @ ?3 learned counsel urged th to ^56,93,163/- or m,£ lakh to ?28.4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of and counsel urged, that Id 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, 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes . 6,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat;ers .m-h

¶9contended that this sale after making a reas development cost to del of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another- (Exhibit PW-15/2), whe bigha situated in 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. 5.8.1,996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay . appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2; in village Bhalswa Jahangir ^1,40,000 and urged that ever is to be given-on said value, notification under Section 4 co thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would A deed should be relied upon, 5onable deduction towards termine the fair market value Lural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 :reby land measuring 4-16 revenue estate of village Mamurpurwas sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of^26,75,000/-pi^r acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned ,counsel for the land owners also relied iell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was khushi Ram in favour of a 'hereunder land was agreed to be, sold on 05.08.1996@ns 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 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of I if 12% appreciation per annum the price as on the date of the mes to fl,94,782-per bigha, and price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt i:he price of developed l'and:for ' ' i • ; . LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmat:ers . Page7of22 ifin 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 arid undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the Dllector has assessed. fair price much higher than the one so has the learned Reference Court.

10.. It may.be noted that whsn judghient was-reserved in the 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 response.

¶11The topography of villcige Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has cpme out in the depositionof !5hri Trilok Chand {HalqaPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoii l/s Union of India in which he i" August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition •App.No.266/2008 titled laiSinah Vs. UOL&Anr. in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals arid learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to arguments of learned the arguments^ which he had zasion may be treated as his as explained the topology of the area while proving the Al<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated, in /ould reveal that village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmeipur and Burariare situatedin the Eiast, villagesSamaipurBadli and Haiderpurare situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in! the South of. village Jahangir Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010& connected,matters 'UTtv

¶12I may additionally notfe that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory | of Delhi, published by Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on .the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.1.. VillagesBadli, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, MamoorDur(Narela) are .on the western side of National HighwayNo.1.^

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangirPuri, post acquisition of agricultural lands 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 village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinoh l/s. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 46'i, resettlement colony called Jah it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period cf emergencyi.e. the year 1975-

¶76It has to be rememberedthat the two subjectacquisitions were also for re-settlementof,:5lumandJ.J.Clusters.

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

0.266/2008 iai Sinah l/s. UOi &

12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronouncedon 19.8.2011,when Instantappeals were reserved for judgment,has since been pronouncedby me on 23,8,2011 and I. would highlight that v\ hiie 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 t Delhi being revenue estate of Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, , Khera . Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana> I had noted tiat the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matiers Page 9 of22 iTir^I constituted a 'V at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnai .Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a common point,, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi iviandi. It needs to be highlightedthatvillageBhalswaJahangir Puri is outsidethe 'V aforesEid and as explainedhereinabove and abuts towards the east of NH-l. In the.appeals relatingto the said 10 villageswhere land ifferent notifications issued from

¶15were 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, the sale 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. In the said judgment dated ,2 two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced here

¶21The first argument

3.8.2011, I have discarded these is recorded in paragraphs 21 to under:- is predicated on ithe 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3which s dated 25.3.200,0,and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh. per the former, fair mc comes to ^26.75 lakhs ' ?63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected ;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 determineWair market value of agricultural lands, for all 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 in LAC No.68/2005 had'stated that to his knowledgethe land was purchasedfor religiouspurposeand was being used for a reliqious purpose. The sale dee ' ~ ~ " id, Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • # been held not to be reli fair marl<et , value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government t! • t • ^ Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated pay the price for, the sal only .plot of the requ Organization" and as per ister Annie, the secretary of ihat the organization had to i piece of land as it was the site size suitable for for destitute women circumstance, personal t

¶22As held in the dec requirement.ofthe organizationand is being used .e. there was o the vendee. a special sions reported as 1995 (1) Land Acquisition Officer Eluru ^ Ors. Vs Ichi C. A ^ / r» I _ ^ : _ _ _ _ : jstiRoilini &Ann (Refeiipara 6) and 2009 (14) SCC l^oiid. Raufuddin 1A-. Land Acquisition Offirpr (Refer para 13) sale transactions, evidenced in a sale,deed which are tendered in evidenceby virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market v-'- ^ ' reason there may which have led the buye without being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bu studied the market and alue of land in an area for be special circumstances to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informedseller w,.hn"^ —-need by any special cy to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land he may pay a much.higher price and this would not be a good index of fair markletvalue ofthe lands in the area. I. would be failing if Ido not highlightthat the ^eecl dated b.2002, which was accepted by the learned ol Court pertainingto the notificationdated

27.1.2003 where-underagricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan .was, sold per acre as against th ^63.478 lakhs per acre • lay. an' agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. ^17,74,109/- e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre,for Ex.PW-l/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters. ni: Ex.PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are havin^ intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from t he reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject 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 u" make all the more a :ct on sale deeds having transaction being the result , I would be failing not to :ecision cited by learned Deing the decision dated a batch of appeals, lead

0.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh 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.^ / latau JIIIUII (Since,deceased) thru !Rs l/s. um nrc it was highlightedthat the sale deed,therein by which L&T I H ^ bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of i ignored by the learnec ground that L&T had a 1 hence .the price reflec treated as a good evide area, was rejected by t s factory which had been Reference Court on the ancy for the said land and :ed. therein could not be ice of value of land in the he Court and the price in question,with suitabledeductionon accountofthe 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 on of the market value, bL therein was reduced by ' would be the same as wo reference .to the averag •ge, was accepted by the le instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-l/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 Jid be price arrived at with rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds •LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatteU produced by the Govern ^1,37,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas 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 J2,31,800/- which was 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

24.7.1995 and

16.11.1995 and Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the 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 pedanticallybut meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated sale deed in question as ,the basis for if it was so, ^2,15,1.60/- per bigha, froni the sum of f3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 19,93 a Section

¶4of the Land appreciation for 2 given. I would highligl" hereinbefore already years had required to be t once again, that I, have noted inherent contradictionin the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itselfis intrinsicmutually destructive evidenceof the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."

¶16For,the reasons therein, 1reject 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 land situated in village BhalswajahangirPuri has been agreed to be transferred,fora sum of'.^lS lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon, another sale deed dated

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

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^5,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003,•it is LA.App.No.999/2010&• connectedmatters 'ft 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 ns lakhs per acre and 7 to ?15.7 lakhs per acre. I ne years down the line the price feli ad to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the • learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ned that the said price was for spGcial considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer and , without being influenced by particular land, and had thus an informed willing seller and special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wheref/omfair market value of a large . track of land had to be fixed.. j issue in my decision dated

¶191 .have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah I/5. UP! & Anr. i p where ah abnormally high price for a parcel'of land is with evidence, of neither bu informed and there being a £ have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with /er 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 ofthe said decision. 1reitebte the same. ! -

¶20As 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 premisedoh the decisionof theSupremeCourt reportedas Lai LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatte:TS IB-Chand 1/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769: Similar 1s, the reasoning pertaining to tlie e ^idence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by ODA.

3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 d extensively discussed the law

¶21In my decision dated lai Singh l/s. UOi & Ors.. I h£ declared, by the Supreme Court in Lai Chinds case. with referenceto price at which ceveioped plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 (}f the decision in iaiSinah's case are extracted hereunder:- |

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted lar id 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 isidential Scheme 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

¶30It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area most unreliable to determine Jbject cases. as held even by the learned with development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela ResidentialSzheme,the subjectlands had acquired a building po would be whaf would tentiality, but question be the value to which buildingpotentialitywould translate itself... hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping view the observation and the findings of the SupremeCourt in Lai Chand^ rasp (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality,relating itself to the value, I promise the decision, to deal with the same while 1 shal be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands

¶31in LA.App.No.999/2010& comectedmatters

¶22Highlighting that in. La! Chancts case (supra) i • Supreme Court held that sucl was too. inchoate wherefror crystallized.

¶23, 1 reiterate the reasoning allotted developed plots in Sa price at which DDA sold dev reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, 1r 1 raw data was meaningless and n fair market value could be to hold that price at which MCD njay Gandhi Transport Nagar and loped plots and. fiats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to . price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lea;5e-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 ca:5e (supra) wherdin this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with referenceto L&DO rates noting that 1am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring' 758.01, bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topologyof the area and as per the testimony of Trilok, Chand (Halka Patwar ) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008it emerges thai; village Burari is. on the east of village .Bhalswa jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil and Burari are separated by t and indeed the plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri he outer ring, road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the. Tibetan.Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparatedby 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010'&conaectedmatters thus the fair market value of two villages would be comparable.

¶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 land on a particular date in the market value of the land situated cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of lad considered the material on in Qr^ In the said decision,I had assessed the fair marketvalue of agriculturalland atm,60,580.82 per acre for CategoryA land, ^10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464.65per acre for Category C land pertainingto the The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at notification dated '24.7.1998. notification dated

18.07.200E ^19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ?17,28,512/-per my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of.LA.Appeals, lead matter being LA. Appeal No.97,1/2008titled Raiba! & Ors. l/s. Union of India acre for Category B land. In •lai. Singh's case {supra), 1 had assessed the fair marketvalue ofland in 10 villagesas under;-, S.No. Village Name Dat und p of Notification |er Section 4 . Fair market value (in lakhs per acre) 1-

¶2Pooth Khurd Holarnbi Kaian

7.8. R 2000 •^nnn w . w / ?14.75 for Category 'A' ^14.3728 for Category 'B'

¶3/I IXCtldll Bawana / .O.

7.8. i zuuu 2000 ^14.75 ?14.75 for Category 'A' ^4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.S>.2000 ;^14.835 for •Category 'A' fl4.46413 for Category 'B' I:iA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattei-s •li') .5. Narela

2.5 .2001 T16.165 , for Category 'A' n5:76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan 22, 8.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' ne.43811 for Category 'B'

7.. Alipur

¶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 ?16.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B' -10. Sanoth

7.1 2.2001 n7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ^8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 as.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

¶235.2002 ?18.655

¶14Alipur.

¶235.2002 ^8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶271.2003 ^19.43:5 for Category 'A' ^8.94:912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Kalan

27.: L.2003 ^9.435 ^ for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ?18.47539 for Cateaorv 'C

27.' In fai Sinalis casp '(qiipra) I had also, analyzed minimum land rates enhanced by the Governmentfrom time to time, and found the same not to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.999/2010& cojmectedmatters 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 Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah l/s. UOf & Court reported as 2006 IV AC Ajin, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander l/s. UOL ill (2004) Dl-T 95 Hukum Sinah Vs. UO! and an unreported decision In LA.App.No.866/2005 5//7a/7 l/s, UO! & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence various dates between the years lo.the minimum price fixed by the GovernmentI had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:- "50. The aforesaidJudgments noted in. the preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from • time to time by the Governmentof NCT. Delhi notifying minimum pricefor agriculturallands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts relevant to determine the, growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990minimum price was ^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997i.e. the increaseis .?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in.7 years and land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t th^ average price increa 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 Gairai"s case (supra), wh above.

¶511 need to elaborate decision in Gairafs> ca se would be 16.436%. The price r .Is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e. 3ws 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 a little more with respect to the se. Discussing evidence , , • uiiv^ V—vi\^dlV_iC pertaining to fair market: value of agricultural,land In village Holambi Kalan as• of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010cfe connectedmatters A.. Court discussed l^he valuation on the basis of agriculturalyield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,000/.- 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 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 industrializationthe land price would come to no,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court theh 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 ^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 age 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 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the pric 2 was ^10,03,364/- per acre. 52, ^The decision in MahencferSinoUs. case, pertaining fn v/rllsno i . . ^ to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court w •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, agricultural land in Delhi cornmercial and industrial future exploitation of and on the issue: of potentiality had . noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so oroiectinn anrl. i-ho i=>r.Hc projecting and . the la potentiality, the same h nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality of the notification with ^ concerned, virtually no c evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which Division Bench was evelopment had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential, para 49 above there is As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The c LA.App.No;999/20r0& connectedmatt6: ecisions in. Gafraj's caise and r" Mahender Singh's, • ca translated itself into a when prices rose by thereafter extende highlight that potentiality reality between 1990 . and 1997 about

16.5% per . annunn and i potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and indus;trial and 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 relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras jrned Reference Court has given upon and for which I have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fancjifulsale deeds, to determinefair marketvalue, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some refereqicesin village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court: has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of tljie date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the, fair market value lof 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 ^=5,39,690/-and ?70,160/-was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (?5,39,690/- + ^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 ccigentevidenceplaced on record by eitherpartiesotherthan the minimum price notified by the Government from'time to time, I hold that the Learned ReferenceCourt has rightly adopted the correctprincipleand has relied upon the correctevidenceand has given the correct appreciationsby suitablyincreasingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between tHe dates when rpinimum prices were notified and. the date cifi the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters •i Section 4 of tlie Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and crosf: objections,whetherfiled 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.999/2010&coimectedmatte:irs •T~T d (PRADEEPNAIMDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-71 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 393/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant : Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Ivir.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus NAVEEN KUMARJAIN & ANR Respondents Through; None. CORAM: ! HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAjOG j I '