Union of India v. Inder Kumar & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm I * IN THE HIGH COURT O DELHI AT NEW: DELHI % Judgment Reered On: 19th A ügust, 2011 Judgment Delivered On; J9th September, 2011 LA.APPJ 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH: .. Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.l\'1ann, Advocate I Mr.Deepak Khosla,Advocate and Mr N S egi, Advocate v. re UOl & ANOTHER ... Respondents Through:. Mr.Sanjy Poddär, Senior Advocate• & M••r.Sapjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani,Mr.,Sjddharth Panda and Ms.K KaomudjKjran, Advocates for R-1 AND + LA.APP 961 /2010,A.APP. 100112010 & CM • No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 1007/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, • LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010, LA.APP. 1036/2010 & CM No.12865/011, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP. 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2Oj1, LA.APP. . 38/2011 & CM No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2611, LA.APP. 89/2011,LA.App 142/2011, LA.APP . 160/201]!, LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP. 248/2011 1 •LA.APP. 298/2duJ,' LA.APP. .3.47/2011, LA.APP. 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011, LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.AP. 394/2011 1 LA.APP. 397/20111, LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. 407/2011. (Relating to Notification U/ $ec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 Award No. 06/2002-2003, Vfllbge-Bhajswa Jahangir Purl) + LA.APP. 57/2011 & ICM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. 88/2011 LA.APP. 130,1201]i, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 164/2011,. LA.APP. 200/2011; LA.APP. 20112011, LA.APP. 202/2011, LA.APP, 216/2011, LA•.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP; 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011,LA.APP.348/2o1l & CM No.15194/2011, LA,APP.349/2011 & CM No.1 15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP.9L2.a1. LA.A.P-- 398/2011, LA.APP. 399/2011,([AAPP.400/201]tLAPp. 408/2011, LA.APP. 410/2011, LAEPZI472UIT (Relating to Notification uSec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001, Viilage-Bhalswa Jãhangir Purl) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRDEEP NANDRAJOG Whether the Reporters :f local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to RepOrter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported In the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, 1. I proceed with an apolog' to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time and then to a notification issued prior in poit of time; but the reason is that the learned counsel for the land o.wners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notification whichwas issued earlierinpointoftime. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Bhafswa Jahangir Purl was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat1er dQ S a toa notification dated 15.09J2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of jJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said 4ct issued on 17.04.2001. After following the due process, Ithe Land Acquisition CollectOr announced his award bearing 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 equkalent to Zl3.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair rñarket alue as of i5.092000 was fixed at Z13.82lakhs per acre. Dissatisfied with the 4sessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned ReferenceCourt, in the lead matter, being LAC 1\Jo.112A/2008 titled Ra/ Sing/i Vs. Un/on of India, assessed the fir market value of the acquked land at T3,03,534 per bigha or14,56,963 per acre. It needs to be highlighteèl thatboth i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well s the•Léarned Reference Court, while assessing the fair marlet value of the acquired lnd, adopted the minimum price thr agricultural land fixed bythe Government as on 01.04.2000, nOtified vide Circular dated

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

01.04.2000 till the •date notiication under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court grahted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% pr annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the prie 13.8.2 Iakhs per acre.: LA.App.No999/2010 & connected matters

¶5Another parcel of lanJ ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same reveue estate of viflage Bhalswa Jahangir Purl was acquired 1ursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998, for the same pulic purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitatioh of JJ Cluster'.. This was followedby a declaration under SectiOn 6 of the Act issued on 04.0811998. After following the due process, the Land Acquisitior Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dáled 12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market 'ialue of the acquired land at 2,33;333 per bigha which isl equivalent to Z11.20 lakhs per acre. 6 , . Dissatisfied with the asessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the Iand 'owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Referène Court, in the lead matter being LAG No.1111A/2008 titled C17andrawat/ Vs. Un/on of/nd/a, assessed the fir market value of the acquired Land at !11,46,670/- per. cre. The difference in 'the destination reached is on the same reason as noted hereinabove pertaining to thenotification dated 15.9.20001.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector adopting the land rate notified by the Government i lyvith effect from 1.4.1997 vide circular dated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notificatiod in question was issued on 30.74998 and the learned Refereice Court granting enhancemen @ 11% per annum for the interrégnurn period. .

¶7The Union of India as J,veii as the land owners have challenged the assessment rrade by the Learned Refererbce LA.App .No .999/2010 & connected iriaters S S Court by way of the .appealsand cross objections mentioned above 8 On behalf of the Ind owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance ws placed on the following documentary evidence:- The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification dated 16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it disclosed its intention tocharge Unearned increase in respect of developed residential and commercial properties owned by l 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 Purl, was fixed S at.?5830/- per square rreter or ?2,35,92,400.92 per acre and it was urgec that if 50% is deducted towards development cast, the land owners should be entitled to enhanceJ compensation in sum of fl,17,96,200/- per acre The rte charged by M.CD for allotment ofl commercial plot in Sanjai Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the ResolUtion No.705 dated 23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), wherby MCD decided to allot • • • developed plots to the transporters @ 425/- per • • • square meter and Exhibit PW-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD decidedto allot the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport' • , • • Nagar @ 4,500/- per sqare metre were urged to be • • material and good evidience. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat ers documents, learned cdunsel for the land owners argued that the ratel stated• in the resolutions aforenoted, whicft was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence thatfair market value of developed land comes to 17,19,857/- per acre and it was urged thateven if50% deduction is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value would conhe to 8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and incrasing the same by 12% per annum, the fair market íalue as of 15.9.2000 would be 24,76,592/- per acreL . . Learned counsel ifor the land owners also placed reliance on thel auction record of plots in S Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW813) . : 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 sqüarë metre to 71 square mette in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between T23.72 lakh to T28.4 lakh, which according to, learnd coLnsel translates to a price of 14,36,36,363 per acr and counsel urged. that suitable deduction could be effected therefron -j pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land. Relying on a sale cLleed of village Khera Khu.rd (Exhibit PW-15/1), wherunder land measuring 2-19 bigha: was sold @ ?32,40,300/- on 25.04.20011 learned counsel urged that the price per acre come to 56,93,163/- or 11,6,169/- per bigha. . It was

LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters S contended that this saleh deed should be relied upon, after making a reasonable deduction towards development cost to deermine the fair market valu of undeveloped agriculural land in village Bhalswa • jahangir Pun. AnotherHsale deed dated :24.03.2000 • (Exhibit PW-15/2), •whreby land measurin.g 4-16 bigha situated in thel revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Rdha Swahii Satsang Vyas at a price of 26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon.

(e) Learned.counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was 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 the land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangirj Purl and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of land in the said village as of the date of the agreement to sell i.e. 5.8.1,996. .

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay .roddar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India relied on a Sale Deed dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2), -whereunder 1-03 big ha of lnd in village . Bhalswa JahangirPurl was sold at a price of !1,40,000 and urged that ever if 12% appreciation per annum is to begivenon said value, the price as on the date of!the notification under Section 4 cones to !1,94,782 per bigha, nd thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available 'in . the same village, it wouldl be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed land ifor LA.App.No.999/2010 8. connected rnaters . Page 7 if 22 1I1fT fixing. the market value of undeveloped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Cbllector has assessed. the fair market value of the land at .a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference Court. 10 It may be noted that when judgment was reserved in the above captioned matters on 119th August, 2011, decision had been reserved for, judgmentl in a batch of land acquisition appeals, lead matter being LAApp.No.266/200 titled Ja! Sinq/7 Vs, UO/& Anr. in which similr arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidnce relied upon in the instant • appeals and learned snir couneI Sh.Sanjay Poddar , submitted that in response. to the arguments of learned counsel for the land owners the arguments which he had • advanced on the earlier ocasion may be treated as his response. •

¶11The thpography of villge Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand (1-la/qa PatL4ari who appeared as PW-2 in LA. No.112A/2008 titled Ra! S/ngh Vs Un/on of/nd/a in which he h as explained the topology of the area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa • 'I fl Jahangir Purl. • His testimony ould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated in the North, villages Mukhmelpur • andBurari aresituated in the ast, villages Samaipur Badli and Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of. village Jahangir Purl. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the • National Capital. Territor y 1 of Delhi, published by the • Government of NCT Delhi wuld reveal that village .Bhalswa jahangir Puri is situated on.t-hO eastern side of.G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.1. Vjillages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorjur, (Narela) are on the western • side of National Highway No;1L It needs to be highligh1ted that whatever development took place in the revenue esate of village 'jahangir Pun, post acquisition of agricultural. lanis in the revenu estate of'sid village was for r-settlementjof slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the character of, urbanization in Ithe area was of a kind where potential price increased du to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision repoited as Amar Singh Vs. Unin of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 481,it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called jaangir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period Of emergency i e the year 1975-

¶76It has to be remembered that the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement ofIum and j.j.Clustrs. The decision in LA.ApJo.266/2OO8 Jal Singh Vs. 110/ & Anr. which was reserved onL12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on.19.8.2011, .whn instant appeals were reservei .for judgment, has since been pron'ounced by me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that vhile assessing the fair rnar!et value of the land situated in .10 revenue estates in the sarne revenue district i.e. North-Wet Delhi being revenue estate lof villages Pooth Khurd, Shahp * url Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, R.ajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalani, Kherá. Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the ara LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected rnat1ers . • T constituted a 'V'atthe poin of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-i and Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point, proceeding in different directions, at Sa.bzi Mandi. It needs to behighligted that village .Bhalswa Jahangir Purl is outside the LV' aforesid and as explained hereinabove • and abuts towards the east of, NH-i.

¶15In the appeals reIatingo 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, 2.001, 2002 and 2003. 1 In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had reIied upon the sale deed dated .25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-151) and the sale de.ed dated .24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW45/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on ' which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in su-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In. the said judgment dated 2.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasohs recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:- S

¶21The first argumentis predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.200.0, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for. the former comes to T26.75 lakhs 'per acre and the latter @

63.478 Iakhs per acre.1 The learhed Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for allthe villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' land Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the saIe deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in L/C No.6.812005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale ded Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/20 10 & connected been held not to be reIiabIe evidence to:determine fair market . value of 1gricuturI'lands on the reasoning it was purchased by allon Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organization had to pay the price for, the sai1 piece of land as it was the only plot, of the requisite size suitable for the requirement,of the orgnization 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) S CC 717. Lahd A cci uisItfcri Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. /stiRohini&Anr. (Refepara 6) and 2009 (14) 5CC 369 Mohd, Raufudd/n 1's. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale tansactions evidenced in a sale, deed which are teniered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894have not to be ipso facto' treated as änexemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the.price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being' , infJuenced by any special circumstances or the fany to buy a particular piece of land.. An informed bLyer'would be one who has studied thernarket and 1has apprised himself of'all available land, in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices, if a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may p.ay a much higherjDrice and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing i I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated

20.5.2002, which was i accepted by the learned Reference Court pertainirg to the notification dated

27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village RaiapurKalanwassoJdbyan agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. 17,74,109/- per acre as. against the price which comes to !63.478 lakhs per acr'e For Ex.PW-1/2 and 28.89 lakhs per acre.for Ex.PW-113. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected ExPW-1/2 and Ex.PW-]t/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from tie reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with vhich I concur, äfore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be: additional reasons to hold that the 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 I find that under various awards nearly between ',OOO to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and When the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circurnspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported cecision cited by learned counsel Sh.LS.Dahiya ieing the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.Njo,19312006 PrataD Sincjh (s/ne deceased) thru LRs Vs. 1101 & Ors. It was highlighted that the saIe deed therein by ivhich L & T had purchased 8bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of is factOry which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence th'e 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 dduction on account of the parcel of land being latge, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in .question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argurhent ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Di\isjon Bench in páras 37 to 38 wherein the Division 113ench, did not accept the value in the sale deed or its own logicas indicative of the market value, but found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3, the price arrived at would be the same as wold be price arrived at with 'reference to the average rate of the sa'le deeds produced by the Union 01 f India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected Page 12 of2 (1 S a produced by the Government were giving a price of ?1,3,7,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price !3,26,600/.- per bigha 'arfid the average would come to 2,31,800J-which was near about the price of • 2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3rd would be deducted from the sum of 3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market \'aIue as of the said dates at the same sum arrived . at as aforsajd i.e. 2,15,160/-. In other vords, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not ithat. the' Court treated the • . 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 ' already. noted the inherent • contradiction in the vaftie of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and'ths itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value:' For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds' in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market valuel l of agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangi'r Purl. As 'regards the agreemnt to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the • land situated in village Bhalsva Jahangir Purl has been agreed to be transferred for a sum'. of T18 lakhs per acre. The land • • owners have also relied 'uon' another sale 'deed' dated •01.07.2003.whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at 15,70,000/-.

18 Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was 15,70,000/- p.ed acre as on 01.07.2003, it is difficult to comprehend •the abnormally high value as er Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4J1996 in which the stated pride is 18 .lakhs per acre. ltis inded a puzzle that in 1996 the price was T18 lakhsper acre and 7years down the line the price fell to T15.7 lakhs per acre. 'I ned to highlight that in oaraaraoh 39 of its decision, the lathed Reference Court, vhile examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opned.that the said price was for :special considerations and nbt the price settled between an informed willing buyer and lan informed willing seller and without being influenced by special needs pertaining to a particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefifom fair market value of a large track ofland had to be fixed.

¶19I have discussed this issue in my decision dated

23.8.2011 in LA.App.NO.266/2008 jf S/ncjh Vs UO/ & Mr. i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence, of neither the buer nor the seller being weIl informed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to beLood evidence to determine fair market value of.a large part of land, being the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten withfancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and .23 of the said decision. I reiteate the same.

¶20As regards. auction ral1es of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandni Transport Nagar, I do not find any substance in the arguments Of the learned counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 'and 30 which are premised onthe decision of th Supreme Court reported as La! LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mattrs C'hand Vs. Un/on of/nd/a 2069 (15) 5CC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the etuidence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by bDA.

¶21In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 J/ S/ngh Vs. UQI & Ors., I had extensively discussed the law declared, by the Supreme Court in La! C'hancls case with reference to price at which developed plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 pf the decision in/a! 5/ncjh's case are extracted hereunder:- Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted laud sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residentia'l Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it'was 20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in numjer which were rioted by the Supreme Court in La! Chancts - case (s.upra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the 'sbject cases. It is no doubt true, as held even by the learned • Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narel.a Residential Sheme, the subject lands had acquired a building pOtentiality, but the question • would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself. •

¶31I hold that the learied Reference Co:urt, keeping in view, the observatioi and the findings of the' Supreme Court in La/C'hnc/s case (supra) has rightly: rejected said 'evidence as reliable. On the issue of • . potentiality, relating itself to the value, I promise th& reader of the. decision, tb'cleal with the same while Ij shall be discussing as Fo what should be the fair,

• , rnarketvalueofthelancjs . . • LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters " Page 15 of''22 S 22 Highlighting that in La! Chana's case (supra) the • SupremeCourt held that uclb raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate whe.rfrorbi fair, market 'value could be • crystaHized.

. I reiterate the reasoningl to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sapjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold de\/eloped plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair hirket value of agrictiltural land. Pertaining to price' ntified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when leae-hold property 'under L&DO is transerred by the perpetual lssee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to devloped plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! C'hancfs cae (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically , 1iscussed and discarded with reference to village Rithalawhere lands were acquired for Rohini Residential Scheme, I negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with referenc to L&DO rates noting thät.l:am concerned with 'large tracksl of lands ad-measuring 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha. From the topology, of the area and as per the testimony of TrilokChand(Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.112A/2008 it emerges thavillage Burari is on the east of village Bhalswa jahangir Purii and indeed the plan for DIhi 'would 'reveal, that the two villages i.e Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and Burari are separated by t 1he outer ring road as we travel towards Muba,rka Chowk from the Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous G ,urudwara Majhu 'Ka Tila. the two are adjoining villages seprated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mffrs . ' ' Page 16 of 22. lip L-1 thus the fair market value otj land on a particular date in the two villages wOuld be comparble.

¶26While assssing the. fair 11market.value of the land situated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuant to notifications dated 24.07.1998 and 18.0712003 issued under Section 4 of •the Land Acquisition. Act, •l had considered the material: on

record i.e. the evidenceir my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of.LA.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled R/ba/ & Ors. Vs. Union of/nd/a & Ors. In the said decision, I had assessed the fair market value of agricultural land at 11,60k580..82 per acre for Category A land, 10,44,522.73 per acfre for Category B land and 9,28,464,.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. 1 The land acquired pursuant to notification dated 18.07.2003 had been, assessed by me at 19,20,568/- per acre for C'ateory A land and 17,28,512/- per acre for Category B land: In .Jat 5mnh'5 case (supra), I had assessed the fa,ir market*valuo of land in 10 villages as :unde 1r;.. Village Name Date of Notificatf7j Fair markf' under Section 4 value (in lakhs , .Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 ' per acre)

14.75 for Category 'A'

14.3728 for . .. Holambi 'Kalan

7.8.2OQ0 Category 'B'

14.75 .3. . Bawana ,

7.8.2000 .' .

14.75 for Category 'A'

14.38125 for

¶4Kh era Kh u rd 1OÔ Category 'B'

14.835 Category 'A'

14.46413 for Categoy 'B'! LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mattrs Page 17 of2 S Iifl) . ............ .. .5. Narelã

2.5.2001

16.165 for Category 'A' !15.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 T16.745 for • Category 'A'

16.43811 for Category 'B'

7.. . Alipur

22.8.2001

16.745 for Category 'A'

16.43811 for _________ Category 'B'

Holambi Khurd . 22.8.2001 T . 16.745 for Category 'A'

16.43811 for Category 'B'

Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 . !16.745 for Category 'A'

16.43811 for Category 'B' . Sànoth !17.295

Shahpur Gárhi ~

7.1 .2.200 1 .

18.655

Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ?18.655

Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 .

18.655

AUpur .

23.5.2002

18.655

Sanoth

27.1.2003

19.435 for Category 'A' ?18.94912 for Category 'B' !18.47539 for Category 'C' • Rajapur Kafah

27.1.2003 ?19.435 for Category 'A' !18.94912 for Category 'B' I8 47539 for • Category 'C'

¶27In La! 5!ngh's case (supra) I had aIso analyzed the • • minimum land rates enhancec by the Governthent from time to time and found the same Inot to be the ise dixit of the LA.App.No. 999/20 10 & cinected matters • •, • Government officers andhad found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization iripacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court repoed as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Ga/rat Sfnqh Vs. UQI & Anr., 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Rm Chander Vs. U01,111 (2004) • DLT 95 Hukum 5/ngh Vs. (IQI and an unreported decision in LA App No 866/2005 Mahendr Singh Vs UQI & Ors decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based an sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined onvarious dates between the years 1993 to 1996 and in relation tb the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighteJ in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:- L (1rfI . . . "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the . preceding paragraphs as also the karious notifications issued from P . time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agriciIturaI lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was . 4.65Iakhs per acre which rose to T10 fakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the incrase is.5.35 Iakhs spread Ovër.7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increae would be 16.436%. The price rise over the .next 1 year is. by 11.2% and thereaftér by 11% for the next 2 yearsi and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. . It shws that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the ivision Bench of this Court in GaLlja case (supra), wIich. I have discussed in para49 above. . .

51., 1 need to. el•aboratea little more with respect to the decision in Ga/ra/s .cae. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural :t1d1 j village Holarnbt Kalan asof 15 11 1996, in paras 9 to '17 LA.App.No•.999/2010 & connected matt . the Court dicussed 1 agricultural yield and fo per annum was 95,00( having good irrigation t land price at Z9.5 lakhs method of land price surrounding areas mci onw.ards the Court discu land prices in adjoinir Godowns had come u found that based on th benefit ofindustrialjzatj 10,03,364/- per acre (I considered the prices n( policy dated 1.4.1997 average figure of Z9,76 lands and 9,51,121/- r The decis(on highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even, with Court found that as ag as of 1.4.1997 at !1O lak highlighting that the pric he valuation on the . basis of nd that the gross return per acre 1-for.multipie cropped land and cilities and thus capitalized the per acre. Discussing the second of comparablelands in the uding potentiality, in para '19 ;sed the, matter with reference to g village Bhorgarh where FCI and based on 'sale instances said sale instances and giving )n the land price would come to efer para 31). The Court then tified by'the Government as per nd thus worked out the mean .121/- per acre for Category 'A' er acre for Category 'B' lands. that the potentiality had been the Government issued the )n w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions the inst the minimum price notified .hs'per acre, sale'instances were was 10,03,364/- per acre. S

¶52Th,e decision in Màhender Sin gh's case, pertaining to village Bawana, refered to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan foh'Delhj 1990 had been taken into account by the CourtWhich was projecting residential, commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhii and on the issue of potentiality 'had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting 'and the iands theoretically acquiring a potentiality,. the same: had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact tht till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with 1which the DivisionBench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana and Hc3lambi Kalan and nobody had e'xploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above thereis ia gap between what would be expected, to be the marlet growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in Ga/rfs case and LA.App.No;999/2010 & connecte Mahenc/el - Singh's cae highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extende1 potentiality did not translate with the requisite. momntum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annuMl l to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Planfor Delhi.199O a fairly large area.came to be developed, both residential, commercial and indus 1trial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturatedi.

¶53The empirical eviqence in the instant case, aFart from the 2 sale deeds rlied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land 1 Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some refererices 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 the. fair market .v.alue of agricultural lands would be !19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for 5,39,690/- and 70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that 6,09,85O/- (5,39,690/- + 70,160/-) were spent would yield theprice 17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale Le. 20.52002 .

28.. In the absence of any cgent evidence placed on record by either parties other'thn tEe'minimum pride notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that the Learnd Referencel Court has rightly aopted the correct principle and has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the corrdct appreciations by suitably incrasing the price to make up the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and, the date df the notificatio.n issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected Section 4 of the Land Acq.Uiition Act and finding no scope to further enhance the compersation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cros objections, whether filed by the land owners orthe.tJnjon of Jrfdia.

¶291 leave the parbes to ber their own cost. (ppzp M1MrDAICr JUDGE SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 . mm.

$-76 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 400/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus INDER KUMAR & ANR Respondents Through: None. iS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG