Union of India v. Satish Kumar & Anr

ORDER %

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm k. s. % IN THE HIGH COURT OF] DELHI AT NEW DELHI . lucfament Reserved On: 19^'' August. 2011 . ludament Delivered On: September. 2011 + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. Vs. UOI & ANOTHER Through: AND ... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate & Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathai<, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kaomud Kiran, Advocates for R-1 + LA.APP. 961/2010, No.12885/2011, LA'.APP. 100 LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM 7/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010, LA.APP. 1036/2010 & CM No.12865/2611, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP. 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011,' LA.APP.. 160/201] 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 LA.APP. 298/201] LA.APP. 386/2011 LA.APP. 397/2011 248/2011, 375/2011, 394/2011, 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/Sec. 4 dated

15.09.2000 & Award No. 06/2002-2003, Village-BhalswaJahangir Purl) A^ D •LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 1 of22 + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2013 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP, 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.l LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 (Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/200Q-2001, Vi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEPNANDRAJOG

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

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

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

¶1I proceed vyith an apology to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time then to a notification issued prior in poirt of time; but the reason is that learned counsel for land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the required price to be suitab CM IMo.12871/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. 244/2011, LA.APP. 2^5/2011, 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.APi;. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. Sec.

30.07.1998 & lage-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) notification issued later and had y reduced pertaining to notification which was issued earlier in point of time.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 estate of village phalswa Jaha bigha situated in the revenue igir Puri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters Page 2 of22 > to a notification

15.09.2000 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 Act issued on 17.04,2001. After Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, ir nnarket of the acquired land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ?13.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed at ^13.82 l^khs-per acre. '

¶3Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the ^Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference Court, In the lead matter, being LAC No.112A/2008 titled Rai Singh l/s. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or ?14,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as we!! £s the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the Government as on ,01.04.20C0, notified vide Circular

11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as learned Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing compensation, did not grant aippreclation 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 learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the price ?13.82 lakhs per acre." LA.App.No;?99/2010 & connected maters >• •5. • Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in tlie same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section of the Lard Acquisition Act 1894,

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

04.08. process, the Land'Acquisitior destination reached is on herelnabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular

25.7.1997 by a declaration under Section 6 1998. After following due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed fair market of the acquired land at f2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalent to ?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 [\io.l]lA/2008 titled Chandrawati Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^11,46,670/- per acre. The difference ; in l-he same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. Collector adopting the land rate, with effect from

1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement interregnum period,

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment rr @ 11% per annum for i/vell as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference & connected mat ers i Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned above.

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

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

16.04!l999 (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 swa Jahangir Purl, was fixed eter or T2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development c6st, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of ^1,17,96,200/- per acre.

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

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot transporters @ T425/- per j\t PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar @ ?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material good evidence. Relying on these be close to village Bhala at ^5830/- per square rr acre it was urgec developed plots to the square meter Exhi Resolution No.610 decided to allot the plots & connected matters Page 5 of22 documents, learned counsel for land owners argued that rate stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fair marl<et value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made on account of the r undeveloped lands, fair market value would corfie to T8,59,928/- 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 for land owners also placed reliance on the auction record of plots in V Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying land comes to ?17,19,85 that even if 50% deduct! development, costs, fc 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 metr^ in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ?23.72 lakh to ^28.4 lakh, which according to. learned coinsel translates to a price of n4,36,36,363, per acre 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), where under land measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ ^3 learned counsel urged th 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat:ers Page 6 of22 contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, after making a reasonable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricultural land In village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. Another-sale deed

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami 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 land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o: the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996.

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay . appearing on behalf of Union .} dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus .was pressed in fair market 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 ?1,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per annum is to be given'on said value, the price as on the date of the notification under Section 4.comes to n,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed l:and for price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the & connected matters fixing the -market of undeveloped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition CDllector has assessed fair market value of the land at a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 so has the learned Reference Court.

¶10It may be rioted that when judgment was reserved in the 19^^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition i.App.No.266/2008 titled lai Singh Vs. UO/ & Ann in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to arguments of learned the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the deposition of Shri TrilokChand (//a/^a Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs Union ofIndia In which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the Al<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. His testimony would reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated, in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the Eiast, villages Samaipur Badii and above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA .submitted that in response counsel for the land owners Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puri. ' • West and villages Bharola n the South of village Jahangir LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat ers

¶12I may additionally riote that the lay out plan of the National Capital. Territory of Delhi, published by Government of IMCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoor^ur (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 Purl, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the area was of a kind where to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah I/5. Union of India 1998 (V) AD fDelhi) A81, it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir 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 of slum and J.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinaii Vs. UOi & Ann which was reserved on 12.8.2011 had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for Judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e.. North-We^tDelhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhl, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Bawana, I had noted t , Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat topology of the area & connected matters constituted a 'V at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 Rohtak common point, proceeding comes to ?26.75 lakhs ^63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi IMandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl'is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1.

¶15In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notifications issued in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) sale deed

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners h^ve placed reliance upon as noted in sut-para

(d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, 1 have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21The first argument Is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the . sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market for the former per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market 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 deposing in Court in L/^C No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise & connected matters A been held n6t to be reliable evidence to determine fair market of agricultural lands on reasoning It was purchased by a Non Government Organization' "Christian Organization" as per the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated ihat the organization had to pay the price for the said 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 i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As heldjn the decsions reported as 1995 (1) see .717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. isti Roiiini &Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC i\^ohd. Raufuddin l/s. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the LA.Act 1894 have,not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for reason there may which have led the buye of land. An informed bt studied the market and area. 1would be failing i Union of India had relied

20.5.2002, which was 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 informed seller without being Influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer'has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair marklet value of the lands in the I do not highlight that the upon the sale deed dated accepted by learned ReferenceCourt pertainirpgto the notificationdated

27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan'was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. fl7,74,109/- per acre as against ^th!e price which comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre ^or Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre, for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds & connected matters .r Ex.PW-l/2 Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from t^e reasoning of the learned Reference'Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons In para a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc ibove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair market value of subjecjt lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition Is of such large an area, it Would make all the more a reason to be circumspect 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 decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being decision

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being: LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratap Sinah (since deceased) thru ms Vs. UP! & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by, the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fjancy for the said land and hence price reflected, therein could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question,with suitabledeductionon accountof the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in tie instant cases the'2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-l/2 Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Di\ islon Bench In paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, bi therein was reduced by would be the same as wo t found that if the price 1/3''^, the price arrived at jld be price arrived at with reference .to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds & connected matters J-produced by the Govern ^1,37,000/- per bigha from sum of ^3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 1993 a Section of the Land appreciation for ment were giving a price of sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price ?3,26,600/-per bigha af^d the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ?2,15,160/- per bigha, f 1/3'"^ would be deducted ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of id notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995 ,16.11.1995 Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at same sum. arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other wjords, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is notjthat the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so. 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 thi|s itselfis intrinsicmutually destructive evidence of phe 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value." •16. For the reasons therein, 1 reject these two sale deeds in present case also as reliable good evidence to determine fair market of agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), land situated in village Bhalswa jahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ^8 lakhs per acre. The land ! owners have also relied upon another sale deed

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at n5,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was n-5,70,000/- per acre as on

01.07.2003, • it is & connected matters difficult to comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 abnormally high as per 1996 in which the stated price is fl8 lakhs per acre. -It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ^18 lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the price fell to ^15.7 lakhs per acre. I need to highlight that in paragraph of its decision, learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opined that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer without being influenced by particular land, and had thus 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

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Singh Vs, (JO! & Ann i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither buyer nor the seller being well-informed and ther^ being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be good evidence to determine fair market value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reiterate the same.

¶20As regards. auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, I do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the land owners concur with decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised oh the decision of the Supreme Court reported as & connected matters Chand Vs. Union of India 2009

(15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the evidence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.

¶21In my decision

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 {ai Sinail Vs, UOi & Ors.. 1 had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands 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 of the decision in jaiSinaii's case are extracted hereunder:-

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

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

¶311hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Ciiands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, 1 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. & connected matters

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

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

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when 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 Lai Chands case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed discarded with vyhere lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi

758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwarp who appearedas PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008 it emerges that village Burari is on the east of indeed the plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and Burari are separated by tihe outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and & connected matters thus the fair market value, of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessing the fair market value of the land situated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuant to notifications

24.07.1998 and 18.07 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,.I had considered material on record i.e. 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 id assessed the fair market value 1,580.82 per acre for Category A land, , ^10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land ^9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to notification dated. 18.07.200Z' had been assessed by me at n9,20,568/- per acre for Category A land and ^17,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. In iai Singh's case (supra), I had assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages as under:- S.No. Village Narhe Dat unc e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8. 2000 n4.75 for Category 'A' ?14.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 ^14.75

¶3Bawana

7.8. 2000 n4.75 for Category 'A' n4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd IIS .2000 ^4.835 for .Category 'A' ^4.46413 for Category 'B' I:,A.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters

¶5Narela

2.5 .2001 ?16.165 , for Category 'A' ns.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan 22 8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

7.. Alipur

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

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 f

16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

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

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 ^7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶27L.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' n8.94.912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category

¶16Rajapur Kalaii

¶27L.2003 n9.435, for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

27.' In lai SinaHs case fsu minimum land rates enhancec to time, arid found the same pra) I had also analyzed by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit of the & connected matters 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 I Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah Vs. UP! & Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOl. Ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum S/nah Vs. UP! and an unreported decision in I_A.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah Vs. UP! & Prs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on various dates between the years 1993 to 1996 and-in relation to 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 paragraphsas also the ^arious notificationsissued from • time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agriciilturallands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine tjhe growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As 3f 27.4.1990 minimum price was ^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ^10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and . th6 average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shpws that due to urbanization, between the year 199C^ and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court In Gairats case (supra), wtiich I have discussed in para 49 above.

¶51I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gajrafs case. Djscussing evidence pertaining to fair market of agricultural .land in . village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Court discussed valuation on basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annunn was ^95,000/- 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 land prices of comparable lands in surrounding areas incljuding potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCl Godowns had come up and based on sale instances found that based on. the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to ^10,03,364/- per acre. (Ijlefer para 31). The Court then considered ,the prices notified by the Government as per policy

1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ^9J6[l21/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights well-factored . in when that the potentiality had been Government issued minimum price notification w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with Court found that as aga 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 price was ?10,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in Mahender SingUs case, pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, commercial industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding Master Plan so projecting lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with concerned, virtually no c which Division Bench was evelopment had taken place In village Bawana and Holambl Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. . The cecisions in Gajrafs case LA.App.No;999/2010 connected matters Mahender Singh's' case highlight that potentiality translated itself Into a when prices rose by the date of the sale I.e. 2 reality between 1990 and 1997 about

16.5% per annum thereafter the extendejd 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 indusjtrial 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 whereofthe lea'rned 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 fancjiful sale deeds, to determinefair market value, we have us the sale deed relied upon by learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in spme references In village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 fair market 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 ^6,09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price n7,74,109/- per acre as of

0.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than tf e minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that the 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 r-li Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cross objections, whether filed by the land owners or the Union of India.

¶29I leave the parties to bear their own cost. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters la. i:v (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

\ M $«67 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 380/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus SATISH KUMAR & ANR Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG