Union of India v. Daya Nand Decd Thru Lrs & Ors

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludament Reservpd On: IQ^'' Annt/cf-2011 ludament De" ^ % ivered On: 19'^'^Sf^ptemhfr. ?mi + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH Tu u ••• Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosla, Advocate and Mr.i\I.S.I\legi, Advocate. Vs. UOI & ANOTHER Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate & Mr.Sa Nawani, Kaomud njay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AND + LA.APP. 961/2010, . No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM 7/2010 & CM No.15181/2011; 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010 LA APP ^ No.12865/2011,LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM 41/2011, LA.APP. 89/2011 LA APP 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP 161/^011 LA APP 246/2011,'LA.APP. 2^11 LA.APP 394/2m 387/2011,' LA.APP.' 407/2Su .^y7/20l1, LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/S. Award No, 06/2002-2003, Villa AK D LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters i , ec. 4 dated

15.09.2000 & ge-Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri) Page 1 of22 jfrnh> + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 244/2011, LA.APP. 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. 18/2000-2001, Vi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. /2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.15182/2011, LA./APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. 'Sec. dated

30.07.1998 & lage-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)

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

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

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

¶1I proceed with an apolog notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir learned counsel for arguments with respect to the / to the reader by referring to a 3oint of time and then to a it of time; but the reason is that land 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 BhalswaJahafigirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 2 of22 to a notification dated

15.09!2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 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 following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fail land at ^2,87,916.66 per bighc lakhs per acre i.e. fair market , at ?13.82 lakhs 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.ll2A/2008 titled Raj Sinah l/s. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or ^=14,56,963per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoras well ds the Learned ReferenceCourt, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agriculturalland fixed by the Government as on

01.04.20C Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market value of the acquired a, which is equivalent to ^13.82 ^alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed 0, notified vide Circular dated

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

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the Jearned 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.999/2010 & connectedmatters

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired [ijursuantto a notification issued I under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of by a declaration under Section 1998. After following the due Collector announced an award J Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08.: process, the Land Acquisitior bearing No,18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, whereby he alue of the acquired land at equivalent to ?il.20 lakhs per assessed fair market. ^2,33,333 per .bigha which is acre.

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The [.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.inA/2008 titled Chandrawati 1/?. Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair marketvalue of the acquired land at m,46,670/- per acre. The differenceMn the destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 and the . same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. lollector adopting the land rate with effect from

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

7.' The Union of India as challenged the assessment m i/vell as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmat :ers Page 4 of22 Court by way of the appeals above.

¶8On behalf of land owners, justifying higher s placed on following and cross objections mentioned compensation, reliance documentary evidence:-

(a) The rate, notified b . dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by WE y the L&DO vide notification hibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in "esidential and commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which, is stated to be close to village Bhala|swa Jahangir Purl, was fixed eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should ..be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of ^1,17,96,200/- per acre.

(b) The rate charged by MCD for allotment of at,?5830/- per square m acre and it was urged commercial plot in Sanja terms of the Resolutior ' Gandhi Transport IMagar, in No.705 dated

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby. MCD decided to allot developed plots to the square meter and Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ?4,50.0/- per sqi transporters @ ?425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No,999/2010 & connected matters p documents, learned co argued that rate Dunsei for land owners 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 conhe to ^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and incre:asingthe 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 ResidentialScherpe in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). Whilerelying on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met ranging between X23J1 according to. learned col pertaining to the; year 2006, " the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square -e in Jahangir Puri at a price lakh to ^28.4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of ^14,36,36,363. per acre and counsel urged, that suitable deduction cou pertaining to undevelope bigha was sold @ ^3 learned counsel urged th Id be effected therefrom d agricultural land,

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

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/- or ?11,£6,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/20108c connectedmat;ers nr>,

¶9contended that this sale after making a reas deed should be relied upon, enable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value . I of undeveloped agricuit Jahangir Purl. Another- (Exhibit P\/V-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 fcir the land owners also relied ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a hereunder land was agreed to be, sold on 05.08.1996 @ ?18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangir Puri and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w I the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay . appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2; in village Bhalswa Jahangir ?1,40,000 and urged that ever is to be given-on said value. ^oddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha, of land Puri was sold at a price of 1if 12% appreciation per annum the price as on the date of the notificationunderSection4 comesto 94,782,per bigha, and thus it was argued that since price of similarland is available in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed land for LA.App.NG.999/2010&connectedmatters Page7of22 fixing marl<et value of having a vast area. Learne learned Land Acquisition C market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 and Court.

10.. It may.be noted that wh^n judghnentwas reservedin the 19^*^ August, 201-1, decision had above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA submitted that in response counsel for the land owners

¶11The topography of vilic undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the Dllector has assessed. fair price much higher than the one so has learned Reference in a batch of land acquisition .App.No.266/2008 titled iaiSinoii i/5. UOi &Ann in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals, and 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. ge Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come-outin the depositionof Shri Thlok Chand \HalqaPatwari) Who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008titled Rai Sinoh l/s Union of India in which hel" as explained the topology of the area while proving the Ai<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated, in ^ould reveal that village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadii and Haiderpurare situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of villageJahangir Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010&comectedmatti:ers O •in

¶12. I may additionalJy note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory | of Delhi, published by Government of NCT Delhi wpuld reveal that village Bhalswa JahangirPuri is situatedon.th^eastern side of G.T.KarnalRoad i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badli, 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 :ate of village Jahangir Puri, post ds in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to urbanization was of a weak took place in the revenue es acquisition of agricultural Ian village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in •potential price increased due nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinoh l/s. Union nf India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) A81. resettlement colony called Jah it was noted that there existed a langir Puri in the .area which had sprung up during the period cf emergencyi.e. the year 1975-

¶76It has to be rememberedthatthe two subjectacquisitions were also for re-settlementof:;lum andJ.J.Clusters.

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

0.266/2008 iai Sinah Vs. UOi

12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronouncedon 19:8.2011,when instantappeals were reserved for Judgment,has since been f)ronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that while 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 and Bawana, 1 had noted t t Delhi being revenue estate of ^ Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela,, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd nat the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/20108c connectedmatters Page 9 of22 constituted a 'V at the pointi of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtal< common point,, proceeding Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi iviandi. It needs to be highlightedthat village BhalswaJahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesciid 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 notificationsissued in the year In those cases, learned counsel 2000,

2.001, 2002 and 2003. for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) and the. sale deed dated .24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sutj-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 paragraphs21 to 23 which are reproduced here

¶21The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh unden ts predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs ?63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected evidence to determine agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale per acre and the latter The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable fair market value of 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 LAC No.68/2005 had'stated that to his knowledgethe land was purchased for religiouspurposeand was being used for a religious purpose. The sale dedd Ex.PW-1/2 has iilcewise LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters 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 reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization" and as per ister Annie, the secretary of that the organization had to pay the price for,the saijj piece of land as it was the only .plot of the requjsite size suitable for the requirement.of the organizationand is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in, the decisionsreported as 1995 (1) see .717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Or!=;. 1/?. jstiRoiiini&Ann (RefeHjpara 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 i^otid. Raufuddin ll^. Land Acquisition Qffirpr (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale,deed which are tendered in evidenceby virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have, not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market v reason there may which have led the buye alue of land in an area for be special circumstances . --.-r 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 circunistancesor the fancy to buy a particularpiece of land. An informed bi studied the market and available land in topology of the area anc buyer has a fancy for a area. 1would be failing i Union of India had relied

20.5.2002, which was yer 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 marketvalue of the lands in the do not highlight that the upon the sale deed dated ,accepted by the learned RQfcirQi->,-^ A. , . .1 Lilt; ledmeu onn? pertainirpgto the notificationdated 27 1.2003 where-underagriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan.was sold ^ agriculturist for a much ,!e per , acre as -against th ^63.478 lakhs per acre, lakhs per acre for Ex.PV by .an agriculturist to an sser price i.e. ^17,74,109/- price which comes to ror Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28.89 V-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters & (•Ill Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from t Reference Court, with \ reasons in para a reasons to , hold that advisably not be gooc market value of subjec le reasoning of the learned vhich I concur, afore-noted bove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair :t lands can be determined and more so for the reason 1find 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 circumsp intrinsic evidence of the ect on sale deeds having 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 the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead ma-f-f.Qr KQlr^^ I A A r _ n ^^ ^ ^ . matter being LA.App.N fs/nce. deceased) thru i 0.193/2006 PraiaD Sinoh Rs Vs. UO! Sc Ors. It was highlightedthat the sale deed,therein by which L&T had purchased8 bigha pnd 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 fancy for the said land and hence the 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-suitabledpductionon accountof the parcel of land being ia^ge, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the Instantcases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. should be treated as thEx.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair /hi argumentignoresthe reasoning in tile decisionof tlie Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the DivisionBench, did not accept the of V? indicative Of the market value, bi" ' therein was reduced by would be the same as wo It found that if the price 1/3'"^ the price arrived at uld be price arrived at with di I ivyu dL wmn referenceto the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattels •1:1,an % produced by the Govern ?1,3.7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas iment were giving a price of and sale deed under ;2d 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 l/S"""" would be .deducted i,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995 and

16.11.1995 and Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at 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, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highliglit once again, that I have hereinbefore already I noted inherent contradictionin the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and thi; ' destructive evidence of fair market value." ?2,15,1,60/- per bigha, fronn the ,sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 1993 a Section of the Land

¶16For.the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa jahangir Purl.

¶17As regards the agreementto sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the s itself is intrinsic mutually the 2 sale deed's reflecting land situated in village Bhalsw to be transferred for a sum o a jahangir Purl has been agreed f ns lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003whereunder4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was soid at ?15,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if tlie price, as per the own showing of the iand owners was ^5,70,000/- per acre ,as on 0l!07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010&comiectedmatters r difficult to comprelnend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4, abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ^18 lal<hs per acre and 7 to ^15.7 lakhs per acre! I ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph of its decision, the • learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has dp special considerations and n informed willing buyer and 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 evidence, of neither bu ned that the sai^ price was for 3t the price settled between an an informed willing seller and 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 iai Sinah 1/5. UP! & Anr. i.e. ice for a parcel of land is with /er nor seller being well-informed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the sarhe not to be market value of ,a large part paid by a buyer smitten with good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy,^ which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 ofthe said decision. I reite^ate the same. es of developed plot of land Transport iXlagar, I do not find ts of the learned counsel for the

¶20As regards. auction rat situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen land owners and concur with the decision of the learned •ReferenceCourtcontainedin paragraphs29 and 30 which are premisedon the decisionof th 2,SupremeCourt reportedas La! LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattexs (iirrii ![]) Chand ys. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots or flats by ividence relating to auction rates , DDA.

¶21In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh Vs. UOi & Ors.. I h£d extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case, with eveloped plots were allotted by id DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in jaiSinoh's case are extracted hereunder:- reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DDA ar

¶29Now, we do not hpe 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 R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai esidential Scheme developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same Der which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as the value of land in the s most unreliable to determine Jbject cases.

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

¶311hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping m view the observatio'n and the findings of the SuprenneCourt in La! Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence ^s reliable. On the issue of reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shal be discussing as to what should vbe the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ffi 7^

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chancfs case (supra) Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate wherefrom fair mar!<et value could be crystallized. . .

¶231reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in 5a njay 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 lea!;e-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual h^ssee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to deveilopedplots and on the parity of reasoning in Lai Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically (discussed and discarded with reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhancedwith referenceto L&DO rates noting that Iam concerned with ,large tracks of lands ad-measuring^758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topologyof the area and as per the testimony ) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC I n of Trilok. Chand (Halka Patwar No.112A/2008 it emerges tha village. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri : village Burari is on the east of and indeed the plan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and Burari are separatedby tjhe outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk frdm the Tibetan' Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous 3urudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparatedby 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatte:;rs ,inr?, -fl.' n? I thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be compar

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

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, •able. market value of the land situated acquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of I lad considered material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of.LA.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008titled R^iba!& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Qrs^ In the said decision, I ha of agricultural .land at m,60 d assessed the fair market value ,580.82 per acre for Category A land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464.65 per acre for Ca notification dated

24.7.1998. tegory C land pertaining to the The land acquired pursuant to notification dated 18.07.200^ had been assessed by me at ^9,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ^7,28,512/-per acre for Category B land. In Jai Sinoil's case [supra), I had assessed the fair market value . S.No. Village Name Dat unc e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

1.

¶2Pooth Khurd Holambi Kalan

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

¶3A iXUiCtll Bawana / .o,

7.8. • /:UUU 2000 i \ [ ?14.75 ^4.75 for Category 'A' ,n4.38125 for Cateaorv 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd — •

11.c i ).2000 '^14.835 for ;Category 'A' '^14.46413 for Category 'B' BA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters 411" .5. Narela;

2.5 .2001 n6.165 , for Category 'A' ^15.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan

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

¶1Alipur

¶228.2001 T16.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

22. 8.2001 I ^

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

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 ^6.745 for Category 'A' ^16.43811 for Category 'B' -10. Sanoth

7.1 2.2001 a7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ?=18.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ^8.655 ,14. Alipur.

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶271.2003 n9.43:5 for Category 'A' ns.94:912 for Category 'B' ?18.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Kalan

27.: L.2003 ?19.435 for Category 'A' ^18.94912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category 'C

27.' In lai Singh's case (su minimum land rates enhance to time, and found the same LA.App.No.999/2010&cojmectedmatte pra) 1 had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Governmentfrom time not to be the ipse dixit of the rs 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 Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah l/s. UP! & MH, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander l/s. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. UCV and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahendbr Sinah Vs. (JO! & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence 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 paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from •time to time by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As Df 27.4.1990minimum price was ^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to nO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997i.e. the increaseis ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054%increasein.7 years and the averageprice increasewould be 16.436%. The price ^'io/1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11/o for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. sh|ows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborativeevidence for this would land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t be the decision of the Ga/rafs case (supra), v/f above.

¶51I need to elaborate decision in Gairafs. ca-Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 a little more with respect to the 5e. Discussing evidence agricultural land in village Holannbi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,In paras'9to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters I : Court discussed valuation oh basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,00C)/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ^9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on/sale instances found that based on thp said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to no,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). .The Court then considered,the prices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated

1.4.1997 and thus worl<ed; out the mean 121/- per acre for Category 'A' er acre for Category 'B' lands, that the potentiality had been Government issued 3n w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions inst the.minimu.rn price notified average figure of ?9,76 lands and ^9,51,121/- p The decision highlights wel [-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as ags as of 1.4.1997 at no lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was ^10,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in MahenderSingh'^ case, pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in jDara 49 above, highlightswith reference!to Para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for account by the Court commercial and indu agricultural land in Delhi had noted that notwit Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential, strial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality istanding Master Plan so , - ly ..lie i"iaDLci ridii projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring potentiality, the same had 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 or •hnQ t-\/-v-t-i-p;^.. 'j-i-r • . . _ . . - which the Division Bench was evelopment had .taken place in village Bawana and HolambI Kalan and nobody had pyn nifpH t-ho a" . i ^ . - . . . . ^ .nau exploited the potential, para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The : c As.I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the. market 'ecisions in. Ga/ra/'s caise and LA.App.No;999/20r0.& connectedmatters -ff-fTi j Mahender Sinoh's • case highlight, that potentiality translated itself into a when prices rose by thereafter extende with the requisite mome between 10% per annun could be that pursuant reality between 1990 . and 1997 about 16,5% per annum and !d potentiality did not translate ;ntum and the acceleration fell to n to 11% per annum. One reason to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and indus|trial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated!.

¶53The empirical evic ence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the; land owners, in irned Reference Court has given upon and for which I have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not iful sale deeds, to determine fair ^ith us the sale deed relied upon Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some 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 the fair market value 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/- -f- ^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price n7,74,109/- per acre as of respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras relying upon, being fane market value, we have \ by learned Land the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by eitherpartiesotherthan the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, 1 hold that the Learned ReferenceCourthas rightly adopted the correct principleand has relied upon the correctevidenceand has given the correct appreciationsby suitably increjasingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between tihe dates when minimum prices were notified and. the date cjf the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters 0^ Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss ail appeals and cross objections,whetherfiled by the land owners or the Union of India.

¶29I leave the parties to bear their own cost. SEPTEIVIBER19, 2011 mm la.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters (PRADEEPNAMDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-69 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 386/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus DAYA NAND DECD THRU LRS & ORS Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG