Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Yadav & Ors

ORDER %

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm M -A' INTHE HiGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludament Reserved On: 19^" August 2011 % ludament Delivered On: 19^" September. 2011 + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH UOI & ANOTHER Through: Mr.Sanja & Mr.Sa' Nawani, Kaomud Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate Mr.Deepak KhosIa, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. Is. ... Respondents y Poddar, Senior Advocate njay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Ivir.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AN + LA.APP. 961/2010, No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100 LA.APP. 1009/2010,. LA.APP. 1010/2010, LA.APP. 1036/2010 & CiN4 No.12865/2011, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP. 6/2011 & CM iMo.6756/2Qil, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2011, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011, .LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. 163/2011 LA.APP. ,246/2011, LA.APP. 247/2011, 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. (Relating to Notification u/S Award No. 06/2002-2003, Villa LA.APP. 1001/2010 & GiVi 7/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, AN LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 347/2011, 387/2011, 406/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ec. dated

15.09.2000 & ge-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) D LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 188/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011, 202/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 200/201 216/201 CM No.12871/2011, , LA.APP. 132/2011, 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.l LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011 LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011 14/2011. (Relating to Notification' u/Sec. 4 dated

30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PR

¶1Wiiether the Reporters of .to see tlie judgment? .; lage-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) ^DEEP NANDRAJOG lo^:al 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/ to the reader by referring to a notification , issued later in 3oint of time then to a notification issued prior in poir t of time; but the reason is that learned counsel for arguments with respect to the owners had addressed notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notificationwhich was issued earlier in point of time.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangir Puri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 2 of22 '-1. to a notification! dated

15.09 2000 issued under Section of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, nannely. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 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 bigh lakhs per acre i.e. fair market at n3.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land a, which is equivalent to ^13.82 ^alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or

¶4It needs to be highlighte Acquisition Collector as, well while assessing the fair marl adopted the minimum price f Government as on

01.04.20C

11.09.2011. Different destina the learned Land Acquisition compensation, did not grant e

01.04.2000 till the date notif ssessment made by the Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoh 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired ?14,56,963 per acre. i that both i.e. the learned Land s the Learned Reference Court, :et value of the acquired land, 3r agricultural land fixed by the 0, notified vide Circdiar dated :ions were reached inasmuch as Collector, while assessing ppreciation for the period from ication under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for tlie said period of 165 days @12% per annum with referenceto tiie base date 1.4.2000 and the price ?13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matiers

¶5Another parcel of ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in tine same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued 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 d Acquisition Act 1894, dated lie purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of by a declaration under Section 1998. After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed fair market v ?2,33,333 per bigha which is acre.

¶6Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land destination reached is on hereinaboye pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 alue of the acquired at equivalent to ^11.20 lakhs per ssessment made by Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The l.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.inA/2008 titled Chandrawati 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired at fll,46,670/- per acre. The difference ; in same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. Collector adopting the land rate with effect from

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

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment rr well as the 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 owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on following documentary evidence:-

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

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by 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 nr acre it was urgec eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhance ^1,17,96,200/- per acre.

(b) The rate charged commercial plot in Sanja\ terms of the Resolutior developed plots to the square meter Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ?4,500/- per squ d compensation in sum of by MCD for allotment of I Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated

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

21.02.200|,5,whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be material good evicience. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters documents, learned co argued that' the rate unsel for 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 " market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to^8,59,928/- per acre in asing the same by 12% per \/a\ue as of 15.9.2000 would the year 1976 and incre; •annum, the fair market be ^24,76,592/- per acre

(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on the Rohini Residential Scher for owners also auction record of plots in ne in the year 1997-98 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav pertaining to the year 2006, ' the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between t23.72 according to learned col lakh to ^28.4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of n4,3.6,36,363 per acre and counsel urged that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land,

(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes 6,169/- per bigha. It was bigha was sold

(a) ^3 learned counsel urged th to ?56,93,163/- or ?11,8 LA.App.No.999/2010 &,connected mat:ers contended that this sale after making , a reas development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir P,uri. Another deed should be relied upon, onable deduction, towards ermine the fair market value ural in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby measuring 4-16 bigha situated in Mamurpur was sold to R revenue estate of village adha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/-\per acre was also relied upon.

(e) Learned counsel fc upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri r the land owners also relied ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was 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 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 date of the agreement to sell 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 ?1,40,000 and urged that ever is to be given on said value, notification under Section 4 cp thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would Poddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder

1.-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of Iif 12% appreciation per annum the price as on the date of the mes to ?1,94,782 per bigha, and •rice of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt l:he price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters Page 7 of22 IV fixing the , mari<et value of undeveloped agricultural having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition C 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 •Hector has assessed fair price much higher than the one so has learned Reference Bn judgment was reserved in the 19^^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition ,App.No.266/2008 titled lai Sinah 1/5. UP! & 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 arguments which he had advanced on earlier occasion 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 LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5 Union ofIndia in which he has explainedthe topologyofthe area while proving the Ai<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa JahangirPuri. His testimonyvrould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burariare situated in the East, villagesSamaipurBadii and submitted that in response counsel for thejand owners Haiderpur are situated in. the West and villages Bharola Sarai Pipalthala are-situated n the South of village Jahangir Purl. , LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matlers I

¶121 may additionally note that 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 th b eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, MamoorDur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development , took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post ids in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the area was of a kind where potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Singh l/s. Union of it was noted that there existed a langir Puri in the area which had ;f emergency i.e. the year 1975-that the two subject acquisitions acquisition of agricultural Ian village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in india 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) A81, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c

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

¶14The decision in LA.App.^ Ann which was reserved ,on o.266/2008 iai Sinah i/s. UOi &

12.8.2011 had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since,been fjronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that v\|hile assessing the fair market value of the land situated in ;.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-Wes villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Bawana, I had noted t t Delhi being revenue estate of Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, , Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters • I constituted a 'V at the point Road i.e. NH-1 Rolital< common point, proceeding of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. it needs to be highliglited that village Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesc and abuts towards the east of two sale deeds for the reaso id and as explained hereinabove 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 In those cases, learned counsel for the owners had relied upon sale deed dated

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) sale deed dated '24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. same sale deeds on owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para

(d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these IS recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21The first argumentjis predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3which js dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated

25.4.2001. As rket value for the former per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh per the former, fair ma comes to ^26.75 lakhs ^63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all reasoning that the the villages In question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale deposing in Court in Lfi that to his knowledge tl-and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while C No.68/2005 had stated e land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious d Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise purpose. The sale dee LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters been held not to be rel fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated pay the price forthe sai reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization" as per ister Annie, the secretary of ihat the organization had to d piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women circumstance, personal t

¶22As held in the dec see 717 Land Acauisiti .e. there was 0 the vendee. a special sions reported as 1995 (1) on Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which.are ten of Section 51A of the L. zlered in evidence by virtue 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 ^alue of land in an area for be special circumstances ir 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 Jnced by any special icy to buy a particular piece jyer would be one who has has apprised himself of all area; has understood the prevailing prices. If a particular piece of land, he may pay a much,higher price and this-would not be a good index of fair marl<etvalue of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I do not highlightthat the without -being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bu studied the market and available in the topology of.the area anc buyer has a fancy for a Union of India had relied

20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Gourt pertaining to the notification dated

27.1.2003 where-underagriculturalland in village upon the sale deed dated Rajapur KaIan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ^17,74,109/- per acre as against price which comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre fpr Ex.PV for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28.89 \/-l/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters \€ Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with^hich I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 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 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it \ reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the. of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported c counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya

19.12.2008 disposing o matter being LA.App.^ 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' 3,eing decision dated a batch of appeals, lead

0.193/2006 Pratap Sinah highlighted, that the sale had purchased 8 bigha for expansion of i ignored by the learnec ground that L&T had a hence the . price refiec {since deceased) thru LRs Vs. UP! & Ors. It was deed therein by which L&T and 9 biswa of agricultural :s factory which had been Reference Court on ancy for the said land and ted 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 d sduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as tt market value. The argur in the decision of the Di\ 38 wherein, the Division value in the sale deed or le instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair nent ignores the reasoning ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative therein was reduced by would be the same as wo reference to the averag of the market value, but found that if the price 1/3'^'^, the price arrived at jld 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 & connected matters produced by the Govern n,37,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ^2,15,1.60/- per bigha, from sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the the • sale was 1993 a Section of the Land

24.7.1995 16,11.1995 Court determined fair market \^alue as of the said dates at same -sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-: In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated sale, deed in question as the basis for if it was so, a,ppreciation 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 th destructive evidence of fair ma'rketivalue."

¶16For the reasbns therein, present case also as reliable good evidence to determine fair niarket value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), ment were giving a price of sale deed under ed the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of f 1/3'"'^ would be deducted ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd notification under Acquisition Act was dated s itself is intrinsic mutually the 2 sale deeds reflecting I reject these two sale deeds in land situated in village Bhalsw to be transferred for a sum o a Jahangir Puri has been agreed f ^18 lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ^5,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^15,70,000/- per acre as on

01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters difficult to comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ^18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ^18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ^15.7 lakhs per acre. 1 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 wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had' to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 008 lai Sinah l/s. 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 rhe hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reite •ate the same.

¶20As regards. auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandh Transport Nagar, I do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the owners concur wit h the decision of the learned Reference Court contained 1n paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised oh the,decision of th s Supreme Court reported as LM LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Chand Vs. Union of India 200 reasoning pertaining to tlie e of residential plots.or flats by

¶21In my decision dated iai Singh Vs. UOi & Ors., I he declared by the Supreme reference to price, at which different agencies i.e. DDA an and findings in para 29 to 31 are extracted hereunder:- 9 (15) see 769. Similar is the vidence relating to auction rates DDA. .8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 d extensively discussed the law Court in Lai Chands case with developed plots were allotted by d DSIDC. Relevant observations of the decision in iai Singh's case

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted lar reference to the Bawan by DSIDC and Narela R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Suprerhe Court in Lai render this evidence as the value of land in the s

¶30It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawan a Industrial Area d sold b.y DSIDC or DDA with a Industrial Estate developed esidential Scheme developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same oer which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which most unreliable to determine jbject cases. as held even by the learned with development of Rohini Residential Scheme and' Narela Residential slzheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be value to which building potentiality would translate itself.

¶31I hold that the learrned Reference Court, keeping in view observation findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters C

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

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

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lease-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 Lat Chands case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed discarded with reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for Rohini Residential Scheme, I negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that 1am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi 758.01 iDigha and 929.05 bigha. I

¶25From the topology of the area and as per the testimony ) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village Bhalswa jahangir Purl would reveal that the two vil village Burari is on the east of indeed the plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous 3urudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.NQ.999/2010 & connected matters 'yv thus the.fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable. market value of the land situated " cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of. lad considered material on record i.e. the: evidence in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA./^ppeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land at ?11,60 land, n0,44,522.73 per ac Md, : ?9,28,464.65 per acre for Ca notification dated

24.7.1998. notification dated

18.07.200!:

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

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, d assessed the fair market value

580.82 per acre for Category A re for Category B tegory C land pertaining to the The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at ^9,20,568/- per acre for Category A land and ?17,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. Ir lai Singh's case {supra), I had assessed the fair market valud of land in 10 villages as unden-S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth khurd

7.8. 2000 n4.75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 ^4.75

¶3/f Bawana

7.8. 2000 ?14.75 for Category 'A' n4.38125 for Category 'B' 4; s Khera Khurd

11.c .2000 ^4.835 for .Category 'A' ^14.46413 for Category 'B' LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters

¶5Narela

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

¶6Holambi Kaian

¶228.2001 T16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶7Alipur

¶228.2001 ?16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

22. 8.2001 X

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

¶9Rajapur Kaian

¶228.2001 ?16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.1 2.2001 ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi .16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶13Holambi Kaian

¶235.2002 ^8.655

¶14Alipur

¶235.2002 ^8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶27L.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Ka ah

¶27L.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ?18.47539 for Category 'C

¶27In lai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed minimum land rates enhanced by the Governmentfrom time not to be the ipse dixit of the to time and found the same LA.App.No.999/2010& cojmectedmatters Government officers Inad found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AC Delhi 13 Gairai Singh I/5. UO! & Ann. 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander I/5. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah Vs. UO! & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t between the year 199C sharply and good corrofc be the decision of the Gajra/s case (supra), wh above.

¶51I need to elaborate decision in Gajra[s ca^ pertaining to fair marke village Holambi Kalan as various dates between the years :o the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said 'decision as under;- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraph^ 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 commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ^4,65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of1.4.1997 i.e. the increaseis T5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054%increase in 7 years and the averageprice increasewould be 16.436% The price t ^ 11-2% and thereafter by 11/0for the next 2 years and 11.5%for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows 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 JG. Discussing evidence value of agricultural in of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatte:TS Court discussed valuation on basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,00Ci/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas inclluding potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had corhe up based on sale instances found that, based on thp said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to ^10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered ,the prices notified by the Government as per policy .dated

1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and. ?9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as ag that the potentiality had been Government issued •n 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 highlightingthat the price was n0,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in Mc' to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court w hender Sinah's casp. pertaining "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 had noted that notwit projecting la potentiality, the same h commercial .and industrial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality istanding Master Plan so nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality of the notification with concerned, virtually no c evidencedby the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which the Division Bench was evelopment had taken place in Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential, para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the market 'ecisions in Gajrafs case LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Mahender Singh's ca translated iitself into a when prices rose by se highlight that potentiality reality between 1990 and 1997 about

16.5% per annum thereafter extended potentiality did not translate with.the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large, area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and indus|trial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evicence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given upon and for which I have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not iful sale deeds, to determine fair good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras relying upon, being fane market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by learned Land whereto in some referer ^5,39,690/-. and ^70,160 mean that ^6,09,850/- spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2 Acquisition Collector pursuant ces in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 of agricultural lands would be ^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 - was paid as stamp duty would (^5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were 'ice n7,74,109/- per acre as of

10.5.2002.

¶28In thfe absence of any ccigent evidence placed on record by either parties mother than th e minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle and has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters € sition Act and finding no scope to nsation or to reduce the same ! objections, whether filed by the ndia. r their own cost. Section 4 of tine Land Accju.is furtlier enhance the compe dismiss ail appeals and cross land owners or the Union of

¶29I leave the parties to SEPTEMBER 19,2011 mm bea LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-63 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 373/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus ISHWAR SINGH YADAV & ORS Respondents Through: Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma and Mr.S.K.Sethi, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG