Union of India v. Murti Devi & Anr

ORDER %

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm l"'. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI \ ludament Reserved&n: 19^^ August 2011 \ V : ludament Delfvered On: 19^" September. 20 M ;.+ : LA.APlf.399/2010& CM No.654^/2011(CFbss-ObjeGtion) . RA] SINGH \ ; Appellant ; ^ , through: MrB.Svtonn, Advo . ^ Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and Mr.N.S.M©g:i/Advocate. UOI & ANOTHER . ReSpondfent:^. • Through;;Mr.Sanial^P SeniorAdNi^ofeti; -^ / ^ &Mr.SanlayKunibr Pathak, MriSachm': ^ Navyanb Mf.Siddharth Pdnda and Msili Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1 : •• •; '• •; and'""'-; + LA.APP. 961/2010, LA:APP. . 1001/20i0 & CM' ;No.l28^5/2011, LA.APP. 1007/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, -LA.APPr, 1009/2010, LA.XPP. 1010/2010, LA.APP.. .. 1036/2010 CM No.12865/2011, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP.:. . • 6/2011y & CM No.6756/2011; 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/ 163/2611 LA.APP. 24672011, LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP. 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011, LA.APP; 347/2011, LA.APP. 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011, .LA.APP.,387/2011, LA:APP. 394/2011/ LA,APP. 397/2011>: LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. 407/2011. ; (Relating to Notification u/S^fc: 4 dated

15.09.2000 Avvgrd No. 06/2002-2003,Viila'ge-BhalswaJahangirPurt •/ ; . ^j[ik<A|^.K0:999/2blO&connected• Pagei'tjl^^- •r — */ > -+ LA.APP. 57/2011 & ,.m . No.12871/2011, LA.APP., 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/20li,' LA.APP. 201/2011, 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. 348/2011 5c CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, .LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP.i376/2011, LA.APP. 380/20lt LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011,(^APPr^ta872UT±:^ LA,APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011. (Relating to Notification u/Sec.

30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village-Bhaiswa Jajian^ir Puri) CORAM: riON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

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

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not? , 3:' Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEER NANDRAIQG. I. l: I proceed with an apology to the reader by referring to a , notification issued later in point of time then to a notification issued prior in point of timfe; but the reason is that -the learned counsel for land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price, to be suitably reduced pertaining to •: notification which was issued earlier in point of time.-

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangjr Puri was acquired pursuant . ,LAi.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters - ' " Page2 of 22- \ »' ' .« 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. Aftef following due process, the - Land Acquisition Collector announcedhis award bearing No.^/2002-03dated 20.04.2002, whereby he assessed the fair nnarket.value of the acquired land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ?13.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed; at ^13.82 lakhs per acre. . , •

¶3Dissatisfied with assessment made by 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.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5. • Union, of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired 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 - AcquisitionCollector as well a^^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

01.04.2000, ;notified vide Circular

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

01.04.2000 till date notification under Section of the . Land Acquisition Act was issued on

15.09.2000, but the. learned Reference Court grafted appreciation for the said • period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to th'e base date 1.4.2000 and the price ?13.82 lakhs per acre.- •LA.App.No.999/2010& connected matters , • t-v , I

5.: Another parcel of land >ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in sanie revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl was acquired pursuant to a notification issued . under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894,

30.d7.1998, for the same public purpose i.e.,'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed.by,a declaration under Section 6 , , ^ • of the-Act issued on 0,4.08.1998. After following the due process, the La'nd Acquisition Collector announced an award . ; bearing No.18/2000-01

12.03.2001, whereby he . assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at t2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalent to ^11.20 lakhs, per • ' acre.'' ' ' • • - ' ;

¶6Dissatisfied with assessment made by the Land . Acquisition Collector, the land .owners sought reference under . Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the ,, ' , lead matter being LAC No.li.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 the. " .destination reached is on same reason as noted :hereinabove pertaining to the notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. . the learned Land Acquisition Collector, adopting the land rate notified by the Government wi$h effect from,,. 1.4.1997 vide , circular

25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notification in .question was issued on 30.7.1993 and.the learned Reference- •Cpurt granting enhancement

(g)

1.1% per annum for . ,interregnum period..^ ; ,7. The Union of India as welF as-the land owners have v challenged the assessment rpade by the Learned Reference ' , LAApp.No.999/2010& connectedmatters , ' • .Page4 of 22'- \ i dourt by way of the appeals and cross objections nnentiohed above. • ' 8i. On - behalf of land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on following ' idocumentary evidence:- ,0 ^ ^

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

16.04.1999 (Exhibit . PW-4/1), whereby it . • disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase in respect of developed residential commercial •; properties owned by 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 fixfed. at^5830/- per square meter or f2,35,92,400.92 per acre and; it, was urged, that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the jand 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 iri Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution No.705

23.11.1987 • (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot developed ;plots to the transporters @ ?425/- per square meter Exhibit PW-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD >- decided to allot the plots mvSanjay Gandhi Transport : K Nagar (§) ?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and vgood evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters - documents, learned counsel for land owners argued that rate stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fair market value of developed land comes to ^17,19,857/- per acre and it was urged , that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the ; development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to ?8,59,928/- per acre in , the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per • •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would, be ^24,76,592/-per acre.

(c) Learned counsel for land owners also placed reliance on the auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3); While relying " on the brochure of DDA pertaining to the year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were, held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre, in Jahangir Purl at a price ^ ranging between ^23.72 lakh to ^28.4 lakh, which according to learned counsel translates to.a price of ?14,36,36,363 per acre counsel urged that . . , suitable deduction could be effected therefronn . ^ . pertaining to.undeveloped agricultural land. .. (d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring. 2-^19. bigha was sold @ ^32,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, , learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page6 of22 Id i5' /•/ contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, after making a reasonable deduction towards \ developnnent cost to determine the fair market value , of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa ,, . - Jahangir Puri. Another-sale deed dated

24.03.2000 / , •/ (Exhibit ;PW-l5/2), whereby land measuring. 4-16 bigha situated in revenue estate of village' Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at '- a. price of ^26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned counsel for-the land owners also relied Y 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 Puri and thus was pressed in . ^aid as good evidence of fa'ir market value of land in the said, village as of the date of the agreement to sell . ; : i.e. 5.8.1996. , 9. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay /Poddar ;learned senior counsel. . appearing on behalf of Union of-India relied on a Sale Deed, dated 05.06.1996(ExhibitR-2), whereunder1-03 bigha of land in village Bhalswa Jahangir. 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 ?1,94,782 per bigha, and .. thu^ it was argued that since price of similar land is available , . i;n the same village, it would be, imprudent to traver to the •adjoining village onto adopt the price of developed land for :,; ;; ,'44-^Pp.No.999/2010&comiectedma^^^^^ : " . Page7of122 / • , • • • . • ^; - / fixing tine marl<et value of undeveloped agricultural lantf having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that thd learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed. fair market value of the land, at a pnce nnuch higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 ahd so has learned Refef'ence Court. ; ; ,

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

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa jahangir Purl has coiTie out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand {Halqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Singh i/s Union of India in which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the/1/rs 5/zra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa; jahangir Purl. His testimony would reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated, in the,North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badii ahd ' Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola and - Sarai Pipalthala are situated in. the South of. village Jahangir Puri. • . ' LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page8of22

¶12I 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 the eastern side of GT.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoprpur (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 acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said: village was for re-settlement of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the character of urbanization in the area was of a kind where potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah 1/5. Union.of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir Pun in the area which h3d sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the year 1975-76; It 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 Sinah Vs. UOi & Ann which was reserved on 12.8.2011 had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, wheh instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011/ 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-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages. Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalan, Khera; Khurd, Holambi Khurd Bawana, 1 had noted that topology of the area . •LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters . Page9 of22 . f •; constituted a 'V at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak Road i.e. NH-IO biifurcated at a commoh point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabz! Mandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri 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 1 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 sale deed

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) ' and the sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. same sale deeds on which learned counsel for land 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 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 daied 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ' ?63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference. , Court has rejected 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages In question on , reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' arid Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale d^ed in evidence, while , • "deposing in Court in LAC Mo.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 LAApp.NQ.999/2010&connectedmatters Page10 of22' been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value 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 that 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 held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) see ,717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. isti Roiiini & Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC i^oiid: Raufuddin Vs. 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 L.A.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 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 influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An,.informed buyer would be one who has studied the market, and has apprised himself of all , available land in the area; has understood ' topology of the area and the prevailing prices. 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 market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I dp not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated

20.5.2002, which was :accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification

27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by 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 for. Ex.PW-1/2 and f28.89 • lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds •LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters-Page11 of22. if • /; ,, Ex.:PW-l/2 and .Ex.PW-1/3, Xhemselves are having X intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie . destroy each.other. | , ;

¶23Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with, which I concur, afore-noted • reasons in para above would be additional . . reasons to hold that .the sale deeds would . advisably-not be good .evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined ^ a.nd more so for the reason I find that under various , ' : awards nearly between

7.;OQO to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and w,hen the acquisition is of v ; ; such large an area, it would make all the more a > reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transacti.bn being the result . ^ . of a fancy of the buyer;: 1would 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 ; hiatter being LA.App.No,193/2006 Pratao S/nah (sin6e. deceased) thru LRs UO! & Ors. It was • • ,.highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 fciiswa 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 fancy for the said land a'nd hence price reflected^therein could not be ; -treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the,Court and the price in ^ , question, with suitable deduction on account of the - . parcel 'of land being large, 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 argument ignbres the reasoning ; in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to - 38 wherein the Diyision Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but found that if the price i therein was reduced by 1/3^^ the price arrived at: .; - • . would be the same as would 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 : LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters -Pagel2pf2i2 IS produced by the Govern'Vnentwere giving a price of ^^1,37,000/- per bigha sale deed under which L&T had purchased 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 . f2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'' would be deducted from the sum of ?3,26,6d0/-.. It may further be highlighted that .in the said judgment the year of sale was 1993 notification under . , . Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was dated...'

24.7.1995

16.11.1995 Court ' , determined fair market value as of the Said dates at. , .the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ' . ?2>15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated th'e ' ' sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, appreciation for 2 years had required to be . given. . I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this-itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value." .

¶16For the reasons therein, I.reject these two sale deeds in , ' the present case also as reliable good evidence to determine fair market value o'f agricultural land in village. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. f

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit, PW-6/1), land situated in village BhalsWajahangir Purl has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ns J^khs 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 ' ^15,70,000/-. , . 18, Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^5,70,000/- per acre as on

01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattes-Page13 of22 j. '• .difficult to comprehend abnormally high value as per :Ex.PW-6/l which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is ?18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was flB 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 .39 of its decision, learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.P\N-6/l has opined that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer an informed willing seller , without being influenced by special needs pertaining. to a particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom. fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed,

¶19I have discussed this issue in my decision

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah i/s. UP! & Ann i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither buyer nor seller being well-informed and there being a sfDecialfeature qua the land and fiave 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. -20. -As 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 l^nd owners concur with decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised an the decision of the Supreme Court reported as La/ LA,App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters , Page14 of22 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 iai Singh Vs. UP! & Ors., I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case with reference to price at which developed plots were ajlotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in iai Singh'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 20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence - has resulted in same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the . Supreme Court in Lai Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as rhost unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

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

¶31I hold that the learn'ed 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 shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App .No.999/2010 & connected matters f?

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

¶23I reiterate the reasoning to hold that phce at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sahjay 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 La! Chancfs case, (-supra) wherein this kind of • evidence was specifically disciiissed discarded with reference to village Rithala where l^nds were acquired, for Rohini Residential Scheme, I negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring:

758.01 . bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008 it emerges that village Burari is on the east of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and indeed the plan for Delhi ^ would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and Burari are separated by the 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 LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page16 of22 •p " 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

18.07.2003 issued under Section of the Land Acquisition Act, I had considered the material on record i.e. evidence in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. 1/5. Union of India & Ors. In the said decisipn, I had assessed the fair market value of agricultural land at ^11,60,580.82 per acre for Category A hand, ^10,44,522.73 jDer acre for Category B land f9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification

24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to notification

18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at fl9,20,568/- 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 Name Date of Notification under Section .Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 ?14.75. for Category 'A' ^14.3728 for Category 'B' ' .-2. . Holambi Kalan

7.8.2000 ^4.75 / ',3. • B a wan a

7.8.2000 ; X1A.15 . for Category 'A' n4.38125 for ^ Category 'B'

¶4• Khera Khurd

11.9:2000 ; ^1.4.835 for .Category 'A' ^4.46413 for Category 'B' LA.App.No.999/2010 8c connected matters . . Page 17 of'22

¶5Narela

2.5.2001 n6.165 , for Category 'A' ns.76087 for. Category 'B'

¶6, • •• I Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 , ^ n6.745 for Category 'A' ^16.43811 for Category 'B' •

7.. . Alipur

22.8.2001 . fl6.745 . for Category'A' n6.438il for Category's'

¶8Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 ' , ^

16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category's' 9; / A Rajapur Kalan

22.8:2001 n6.745 , for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for' Category 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.,295

¶11r Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ' ^8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.'2002 ?18.655 , 15. Sanoth -27.1.2003 fl9.435 . for Category'A' ?18.94:912 for : Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16• ' Rajapur Ka an

27.1.2003 : n9.435 , , for Category 'A' nS.94912 for Category 'B' ?18.47539 for. Category 'C .

27.' In lai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time to time.and found the same not to be the ipse dixit the, LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters , Page 18 of 22 : ; Government officers and had fquhd not only rationale but a .reflection of urbanization Impacting such increase. With : reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this , , Court reported as .2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Singh Vs. JJOf & . ^^ 'Anr.. 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOl. Ill (2004) ; DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. UO! and an unreported decisiohMn LA.App.No.866/2005 IVIahender Singh Vs. UOi & Ors. decided ; ,on 11.5.2006 wherein based :on>sa.le deeds and other evidence land price was determined on various dates between the yeairs • 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 Jjp , tiecisionas under:- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted'in the preceding paragraphs as also the_various notifications issued from . ' . time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying ' : minimum price for agriculturaMands 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 ' " ' ' , f4.65 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 giyes us a;115.,054% increase in 7 year^ and - , the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price, ' ^ .rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by . ^ , v . 11% for the next 2years and 11.5%for the next year i.e.; as of 1.4.2001. It. shojws. that due tq urbanization,: , between the) year 19^0' and' 1997 prices grows fairly • ; sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would ; , ' :V be ,the decision of the Pivision Bench of this Court-in : ; Gairafs case (supra), whicn, I have discussed in para 49-V' . • -atJove.- ^ . ,

¶51I need to elaborate d little more with respect to the . ^ decision in Gairais case,. plscussing the, evidence: pettaining to fair market value of agriculturar land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17^ . LA.App.No.999/20l6&.connectedmatters Page19 of22 ,,, ^5 I ^ , ' 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 that the potentiality had been . well-factored in when, Government issued ; minimum price notification, w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions Court found that as against the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ?10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price, was no,03,364/-per acre. '

¶52The decision in Mahender Sinah's case, pertaining • to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above; highlights with reference to. para 28 to" 31tof the decision . that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, j • commercial industrial future exploitation of ^ ^ agricultural land, in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had-noted that notwithstandinig the 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 which Division Bench was .concerned, virtually no develophnent had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody, had exploited the potential. As I ha.ve 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 decisions in Gairafs caise r . ' ^LA.App.N6.999/2010^ connectedmatters ' ' Page20 of22

1.'^ Court discussed valuation on basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and .thus capitalized land price at ^9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in surrounding areas including potentiality, in para onwards the Court discussed the..matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving , benefit of industrialization the land price would Come-to ' • ^0,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then ' considered the prices notified by the Government as per policy

1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean V. I ,. V Mahender Singh's case.. highlight that • potentiality ' translated itself into a reality between 1990; and 1997 when prices rose by .^bout

16.5% per annum and, ' ^ ^ thereafter the extended: potehtiality did not translate. ^ • ; with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell: to :, between 10% per annunn to 11% per annum. One reason could Ipe that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial industrial probably there was enough availability of devejoped land and. the hunger of the market got saturated. - ; 53: The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart , , - from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in . respect whereof the learned jReference Court has given - good reasons not to relyuUgoiiand for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful ^ale deeds, to determine fair . , ; .market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon • by learned Land 'Acquisition Collector, pursuant whereto in sorne 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.'20.5.2p02 fair market value of agricultural lands would be , / . , ?i9,16>040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning , , ' i/; that 1 bigha and 13 bisyya of l^nd which was,sold for . ,. : ' ^5,39,690/- and ^"70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would, 7 ; ; mean that ?6,09,850/-, (^5,39,&90/- + ,?70,160A) were , Spent would yield the price ^17,74,109/- per acre as of , ; the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002. , 28. In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record • by either parties other than the minimunri price notified by the . 7' 'government from time to time, I hold that Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle ; 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 ,uhdei;v LA.App.Np.999/2010 & connected matters • • : . Page 21 of 22. .. ^5 jKU- •1. 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.

¶291 leave the parties to bear their own cost.^ , -v^ (PRADEEP NAIMDRAJOG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters , ,

$-79 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 408/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus MURTI DEVI & ANR Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG