Union of India v. Jagat Singh & Ors

ORDER %

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm •• y * IN the high court of DELHI AT NEW DELHI , I'udqment Reserved On: 19^''Aunust 2017 Judgment DeliveredOn: September. 2017 + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) Through:, Mr.B.S.IVIann,Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and ' Mr.lM.S.Wegi,Advocate. Vs. UGI& AN,o™er : Respondents Through: Mjr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate &:Mr.SanjayKumar Pathai<, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K . , Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1 . ; AND + LA.APP. 961/2010, , LA.APP. 1001/2010 &' CM No.12885/2011,LA.APP. 1007/2010&CM No.15181/2011 LA.APP. 1009/2010,^ LA.APP. 1010/2010 LA APP' 1036/2010&CM No.12865/2011,LA APP 5/2011 LA APP 6/2011,& CM No.6756/2011 La APP 38/7011^ No.6740/2011,U,APPj4i/2011..LArPP:sSl^L^.APP 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP 161/2011 LA APP 163/2011 LA.APP. 24672011;LA.APP. 24%oii;lXAPP: 248/2011, LA.APP, 298/2011, LA.APP. 347/2011 LA APP 386/2011, LA.APP. 387/201l' LA'APp' 407/2Sn': ^°®^2oii:tA:APp; melating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 & Award No. 06/2002-2003,Village-BhalswaJahangirP^ ' AND LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters " Page1of22 •S> + LA.APP.' 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. 88/2011^ LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011,; LA.APP. 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011> LA.APP. 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, LA.APP. 24C^2011> LA.APP. 241/2011,-LA.APP. 242/2011, LA./\PP. 243/2011, LA.APP. 244/2011, LA,APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. , 323/2011, LA.APP:.346/20il,.LA.APP. 348/2011&CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP,349/2011;& CM ,No.l5l82/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, LA.APP; 382/2011, LA.APP. 39.3/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, ; LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, : LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011.: . -(Re^ to Notification u/Sec. 4. dated 30.07.1998..& Award No. 18/2000-2001,Village-Bhalswajahangir Purl) ' CORAM: , ' HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEPRADEEPNANDRAJOG;- : . : I.- Whettier.tlieReportersof Ideal papers may be allowed •- to see the judgment? . , ; ' , •2. To.be referred to Reporter or not? ,'" ,3. Whether the judgment should be reportedln the . • , Digest? ' ' : . . , •^ , i • PRADEEPNANbRAIQG.I. i

¶1Iproceed with an apologyto the readerby referringto a' notificatipn issued later in point of time and then to a notificationissued prior in point oftime; but the reason is that the learned cc|unsel for the land owners had addressed ^argumentswith respectto the notificationissued laterand had• required price to be suitably reduced pertaini;ng to the; . notificationwhich was issuedearlierin pointoftime! i

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the'revenue' estate of village BhalswaJahangirPuri Was acquired pursuant LAApp.No,999/201P&co|mectedmatters . P^ge2of22

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 •bigha, •situated in .tine same .revenue, estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri .was acquired pursuant to a nkification issued under Section 4 pf the Land Acquisition Act 1894; dated

30.07.1998,for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitationof JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declarationunderSection'6 of the Act issued on 04.08,.1998. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collectorannounceid an award bearing N6.18/2000-01, dated

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalentto m.20 lakhs per acre. ; •

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land owners sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/2008 titled ChandrawRti-V^. •. Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair marketvalue of the. acquired land, at m,46,670/- per acre. The difference; in the destination reached is on the sariie reason .as noted . hereinabovepertainingto the notificationdated 15.9.2000i.e.. the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoradopting the land rate notified by the Government,,with effect frorri' 1.4.1997 vide circulardated 25.7.1997and ignoring that the notificationin, question was issued on 30.7.1998and the.learned Preference Court granting enhancement @ 11% per annum for the interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as well as the land owners have challengedthe assessmentmade by the Learned Reference • LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • "• Page4of22 to a notification dated l5.09.2000 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 , following ths due , process, the Land,'Acquisition? CollectQr announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated .2,0.04.2002, : whereby he assessed the fair market value of tfe acquired , land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent-to ^13.82 •lakhs per acre i.e. fair market vajue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed 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.om4,56,963 per acre. • 4. It needs to be highlighted that both i'.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well as 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 dated

11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition Collector, while, assessing the 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 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.999/2010&connectedmatters Page3of22 •- J, r ro Court by Vvay of the appeals and cross objections rrientioned above. - / • ; ; ' ' • •

¶8On behalf of the land ~ owners, justilying higher compensation, reliance was placed , on the, follovving documentary evidence;- . :

(a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide, notificatioh . ' dated

16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), Vvhereby it ! ' disclosed its ii7tention to charge unearned increase in . respect of developed residential and Gomm^rcial properties owned by ;l&DO. Relying on ,' this , ' document, it was argued that in the year'1999y.the . ' rate,of residential labd in.-Aiadpur,whichJs stated to be clbse to villa.g,e BilalasVva,JahangirPurl, .was fixed • , at ^5830/- persquare meter or.?2,35,92,406!;92per ; ' - acre ^,and it, was urged that 4f 50% ii deducted V towaiSds developmentcost, ,1:he land owners'^should^ , be entitled to ..enhanced,corhpensationfin sufn of ?1,17,96,200/-per acre. • ' •. ... ,

(b)' The: rate charged by MCD for allotmerrt:'of. , ' commercial plot in Sanjay GandhiTransport Nagar, in terrns of the Resolution No.705 dated 23.11.1987, . (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot developed.plots to the transporters (a) >f4.25A per i , square meter and Exhibit PAA/-3/2, a cojDy of.vthe ^ Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD decided to allot the.plpts in Sanjay Gandhi Transport : Nagar@?^,500/-perjsquaremeti-e were urgedto be material and good^^^^vidence. ^Relying on ;tHese LAApp;No.999/2010•& connected.matters . . Page5of22 w documents, learneci .counsel for the land owners . argued that the rate stated. In the,:-resolto aforenoted, which was>pplicable for the. year 1976, Would evidence th^t'fair market value of.;developed land comes to fl7,19,857/- per acre and it was urged . . that even if'50% deduction is made on actount ofthe , development costs; for undeveloped lands/, ... market value would .come to ^8,59:,928/-per, acre in the year 1976 and increasingthe same by. 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000: would be ^24,76,592/-per acre. .

(c) Learned counser for the land owners.,.also placed reliance on the auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98. and .1998-99(ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying . on the brochure of PDA 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 jDfice ranging between T23.72 lakh' to ?28.4 lakh,, which accdrding to learned counsel translates to a price of ; T14,36,36,363 per acre, and counsel urged that suitable : deduction could be effected therefrom . pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land.. . ^

(d): Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd ; ; (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land.measuring 2-19 . . •• bigha was sold ?32,40,300/-: .on 25.04..2001,- . learned counsel urged that the price per acre cbmes to ^56,93,163/- pr ^11,86,l!69/- per bigha. It mas' LA.App.No.999/2010&.connectedmatters . ' •/; ' , •Page'6of22'. ' >^ V • •9. cdi^itended this, sale deed-sho-uWbe relied upon, ' after .making a • reasonable deduction towards deveiopnient'cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhaiswa Jahangirfurl. Another-saledeed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit 'f'W-15/2), whqreby farid . measuring 4-16 b.igha situated in. the revenue eistate-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/i) which was executed by one Shri-Khushi Ram in favour of a | society 'l^^/s-.Butterfly',whereunder land was agreed to' .be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^18 lakhs per acre. ;lt 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 ' the,said village as.of the date of the'agreement to sell i.e. ,5.8.1996, : . . : 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)., whereunder 1-03 b'igha of land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl was sold at a .price of . -^1,40,000and urged that even-if 12% appreciationper annum, is to be given on said value, the price as on the date of the ' notiftpationunder Section'4comes to n,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available in the, same village, it would, be imprudent to: travel to the adjoining-village or to adopt the price of developed liand for' LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedii^atters P'age7 of 22 • ? . . i fixing the :market value of undeveloped agricijltural land ; having a vast.area. Learned counsel,also argued that,the- ; learned ;Land'Acquisition,.Collect assessed the fair; . vmarketvalue of the land at a price;much higherthan the one ^ xeflected in Exhibit R-2 and, so' bas the: learned,Reference Court.; i ^ •" ::10^ It rnay be noted that when judgmentwas reserv-^din the^ , ,-above captioned;:mattersth-19^^;August,20il,.decision had, ' ; been reserved for, judgment in a batch of iand acquisition• appeals,lead matterbeing LA.App.l^o:266/2q08:titled ' ,1/^; iJOl &:Anr. \x\ which'similarargumentsas were ;advanced-V, with respect to similar evidence relied .upon in the instant; ; appeals,:•and learped.;seniior counsel: ShvSanjairPodd^r ,. subrhitted that in. response to:the arguments c^ learned, Gou'nsel:forthe, land owners/the argunnents whicb ha^;, V iadvanced on the pearlier :occasi6n.'nr^ay be 'treated ,as hi| : 'response, ,• " .• .11. The topography pf village :Bhalswa Jahangir Puri .ha^ • . come out in the depositibhof Shri TrilokChand [HalqaPatwari). who appearedas PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/200&titled^^?5z^^ \/<Union of India has explained the topofogy ofth^ ;area wbile.provingthe Aks Sizra Ex.PV\/-2/lof village Bhalswa. :JahangirPurl. His testimonywould reveal that villageKadipur - and Libaspur are situated in the North, villages;Mukhmelpur: ' and Burariare situated i^n the East, vHlagesSamaipur Badli an^ H^iderpurare situated in the West and villages Bharola and . Sarai, Pipalthala are situated in the;.South of village Jahangir '• y/Pud// • ^ - LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters ."\,v,Page8'of 22

¶12I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the' National . Capital Territory of Delhi, publisheid by the Governhient of NCT Delhi would, reveal that village KBhalswea Jahangir Puri is situated on the eastern side of d.T.Kamal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badii, Samaipun Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, iviamdorpur (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 villageJahangir Purl;, 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 o'f^a kind where .potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah Vs. IJmnn /^M^1998(V) Ad (Delhi)45p, it was noted thatthereexisteda-' 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 lai Sinah Vs. UOJ Ann which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and 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-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur .Kalan, Holambi Kalan,. Khera, Khurd,' Holambi Khurd . and Bawana, 1 had noted that the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . • Page9of22 • •! / ' *11? ! \ canstituted 'V at the point of intersection where GT.Karna] Road: i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak Road, I.e. NH-IO bifurdated at a , common , point, proceeding, in..,,different directidns,. at. Sabzi, . Mandi. It ne,eds to,be highlighted that village BhalswaJahan^r Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihaboye . , 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 frdnv ; : time to tinne I had dealt with notifications issued; in the.year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned couns^ , for the land owners had relied upon the; sale deed dat^d

25.04,2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1). and the sale; deed dat^

24.03.2600 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale .deeds oh; -which learned counsei for the, iand owners have placed ,', teliance upon as noted in sub-para .(d) pf^para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded the^e . • two sale deeds for the reasons r^cprded in paragraphs 21 to 23, which are reproduceci hereund;er:- . ; •

¶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-l/2 which is dated 25.4/2001. As <. , per the former, fair-market value for the.', former , comes to ?2f.75 lakhs-per acre and the latter @ . ?63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference - : •/ .Court has^rejected the, 2 sale deeds as,reliable: . . evidence ,to determine fair market ;,valued of agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on' ''' ;• ., the; reasoning that the sale ,deed ' Ex.PW-1/3 was • •'' purchased by , a religious trust by the, name of . - 'Radha Swami Satsahg' and Suraj Bhan PW-6'who ^ ' . had tendered the sale deed in evidence,. While • . deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005:had,;stated , th:at to his knowledge'the land was purchased Tor religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise ' LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters " Page lO of.22,, " . t been held not to-be reliable evidence to determine ' - fair marl<et value . of agricultural. lands, on( the ' reasoning it was purchased by a Non Governrhent Organization,"Christian Prganizatiori" and as per ^ the testimonyQf PW-7 SisterAnnie/thesecretaryof /: the organization stated that the orgahizatidn had to pay the price,for/the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for "the, r^uirement of the organizationand 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 Acauisition Officer EJuru & Ors. Vs. fsti Rohini&Ann 6) and 2009 (14),.SGC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land AcauisitiDn<M^c^r^ \- (Refer para 13.) sale transactions \evidenced in a- ' sale deed which are tendered in evidencebyvirtue , 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 ah area for . the, reason there may be special circumstances' ' , which have led the buyerto pay a higher;^rice. The• •' . ^true test is,the price;whiQh a.well informed'willing , . buyer would pay to an equally well infornied seller - i . without being - influenced by ; any .special •cirou.mstances or the fancy to buy,a particularpidce of,land. An informed'buyer would be one who .has studied the market ,and has apprised himself oljall available land in .the area; has understood ;the topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of lahd;^ he .i-may pay a much higher price and this would hot be . v a good index of fair market.value of the lands in the area., I would be failing if I do not,highlightthat the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated

20.5.2002, which was accepted by th^; learned Reference Court pertaining,to the notificationdated

27.1.20|)3 where-uhderagriculturalland in village •Rajapup Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agricult|iristfor a much lesser price i.e. tl7,'74,l09/- per* acrtie as .against the 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 - •L^.App,No.999/2010&cormectedmatters Page11 of22-I ..? Ex.PW-1/2 .and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having mtrinsicevidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie :- destroy each other. • ; • •

¶23Thus, apart froni the reasoningof the,learned Reference Court, with which i concur,^§fore-noted ;reasons in p.ara 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the, 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidente wherefrorn-fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more,so.for the reason Ifind that undervarious • aw^ nearlybetween7,000 to 8,000bigha-ofland ave been acquiredand when the acquisitionis, of such,large an area, it would make all the rhbre a . reason to;.be circumspect on sale,deeds having ; intrinsicevidence'of the transaction,being the result r . of;:a. fancy:;0f.the buyer.. 1would-be failing not to • note an ^unrepo^ted decision :cited by learned being: the decision : dated

19.p.2.008disposing of a,,batch of appeals lead matter being LA.App.No.l93/2006 Pratao 'S/nnh ^since:decea^sed)fHm LRs uoi ^ it .was - .highlightedthatthe sale deed therein by \which L&T had .purchased8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had. been , ignored by the learned Reference•Court on ihe :gmund^atL&T had a fancy forthe said, landg^d ^ hence. the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidenceof value of land in the . ar^a was rejected by the Court and the pricyjn question,,with suitabledeductionon accountof the parcel of land being l^rge, was accepted,hy the ' Court and thus even in the instant,casesthe 2 sale 'u i-e-Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-i/3 should be treated as the basis to determinefair market^value..The argumentignoresthe reasoning in the decisionof the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherem the Division Bench, did not accept the value mthe sale deed on its own logic as indicative ,of the market value, but found that'if the price ther^rrw^ reduced ,by 1/3^^^ the price arriv^^at would be the same as would be pricearrivedat With reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced-bythe Union of India i.e. the sale deeds ,• £A.App.No,999/2010&'.connectedmatters P^ge 12 of 22 produced by the Government were giving, a price of .?1,37,000/- per, bigha and the sale deed under ' which L&T had purchased the land gave, the price ^3,26,600./- per bigha and the, average would come to ^2,3r,800/-'which was near about the price of i ^2,.15,160/- per'bigha, if 1/3''' would be deducted.. from .the sum of^3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the, year of , the sale was 1993 and the notification under ; . Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated ;

24.7.1995 and - 16.11.1995, and the Court determined fair market-value, as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at, as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,16.0/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not tOi, be read-pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated ,the sale deed in question as the basis for if;it was so, ' the-appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have • hereinbefore ' already , noted the inherent ; contradiqtionin,the'valueof 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 and good evidence to-determine fair market value of'agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. ' , ' .

¶17As regards the agreement to sell .(Exhibit PW-6/1), the, land situated in village BhalswaJa.hangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ?18 lakhs per acre. The land owners, have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. l.acre land was sold at ?15,70,000/-. . . " \ , .

¶18Now,, 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.& connectedmatters Page13 of22 , difficult: to comprehend the abnormally higji.•vajije as ^per . Ex.PW-6/1which is;dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price Is ^ ^18 lakhs.per acre.- It is indeed a puzzlethat in 1996 the price was ?1S lakhs per acre and 7.yearsdown the linje the pricefell to tl5.7 lakhs per acre. I need to highlightthat in .paragraph of its decisipn, the. learne.d Reference' Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opined that the saj.d price was for special considerations and not the price settled bMween'an : informed willing buyer and an informed willing seller and . without being, influenced by special needs pertaining to a, . : particular land, and had:thus discarded the seid sale deed as: . • ncit reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value,of a large : •:V:?trackofjandhad\tC) be fiked. • . 19. I: have discussed this issue in my' decision dated

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2Q08lai Sinah Vs. uar^ Anr iI : where an abhomnaHy high price Mr a parcel'oflahd,is with^ , ' ,, -evidence of'neither the;, buyer nor, the, seller-b^hg/we{l- ; informed:ahd'there being;a specialfeature qua thejandand ' •: have held the same not to be good;evidenGeto determinefair • market value 0 large part of. land, being the fanciful price • . paid by a-buyer smitten With fancy,, which observations have , already.been extracted by me hereinabovei.e! paras 22 and ;• 23 of the;said decision.Ireiteratethe sarne. - - '

¶20As.regards auction rates of developed plot of larjd, ' situated;in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, l: dd ndtjind- ^ any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the , ; land, owners and concur with the decision df the learned:; • .ReferenceCourt containedin paragraphs 29 and 30 which are, premised pri the decisionof:theSupremeCoij-treported as Z.a/: LA.App.No.999/20i0&connectedmatters. .Page14 of22• r • Chand Vs. Uninn nf Inrli^ 2009 (15) SCO 769,. Sifriilaris the reasoning pertainingto the evidence relating,to auction;rates of residentialplots or flats by .DDaI :

¶21In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.2e6/20d8 ' . Singh Vs .UO! &dm,, I had.extensivelydiscussedthe law . : declared by the Supreme Court \x\ with . referenceto price at which developed plots were allotted by differentagencies I.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevantobservations ,: and findingsin para 29 to 31 of the decisionin;^/a/j5^^'scase • r -^re extracted'h^^^ : ' 2^. Now, 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 developedV and. Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA-'Whetherit was 20% or 75%, we do not know . ' f. The inchoate,evidence has resulted in the: same , • factors,,.being3 rn number'whichwere noted by the . Supreme Court in case (supra),, which .'. render this evidenceas most unreliableto determine:;"•^ the value of land.inthe subject 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 subjectlands-had .. acquired a building potentiality, but the question ' would be what would ;be the value to which the : building potentiality would translate itself. . '

¶31I hold that the learnedReferenceCourt, keeping m view the observation anci the findings of the SupremeCourt in Z5/_G^^£7^scase (sbpra) has rightly ^ rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of' potentiality.relating itself to:±he value, I jaromise the ^ . , reader -of the decision;to dear with, the same while I^ ^ shall be discussing-as to what should be the fair A , ; - niarketvalue.of the lands. .• . J;. , ::LAApp;Nb.999/26lO&coiWt'edmatters • ' ' .Page15"of22 • . • • • , c. I • i ''22^ •Highlighti^^^ in Zjg/ Chancfs case (fwa) the ' Suprenie, Court held that such raw data was mea'mngless and; was too inchoate.\wherefrom.:fai.r n^a:ri<et value could be crystal;! ize,ci; •' •:;23. ; I reiterate theTeasdning to hold.that price at-iWhich MCD allottedJd&Velopeclplots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport,Nagarand \ price at which DDA sold developed plots and:flats would be . irrelevant to deterhnine fair market, value of,agricultural land. ' - . 24.' Pertaining to, price notified by L&DO for charging • unearned increase when lease-hold property under ,;L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice'wouidIt be to state that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chands case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was ; specifically discussed arid discarded with^ 'reference to village Rithala where lands were acqt-ijred for Rohini ResidentialScheme,i negatethe plea for compensation, ' to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates notingthat I ami concerned, with large tr^cki of lands ad-measuring: 758.Olr ' bigha and 929.05 bigha. 2,5. From the topology of the are^ and as per the testimdhy;, .ofJrilok Ghand (Halka Patwarl) who appeared as Nc).112A/2008it emerges that village Burari is;on';the east of; • ' village Hhalswa jahangirPurl and indeed the p,lan;for Delhi .would revear that the two-villages,i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Pun and Bur^ri are .separated' by the outer ring road as we travel. towards VMubarka; Chbwk from ,• the. Tibetan,:Re-s^tlemeht . ; colony,adjoining the,famous GurudwaraMajnu. Ka .Tlla;^^-^^^ two are adjoiningvillages^^^^^ by 'Outer Ring Road' and ••• LAApp.'NQ.999/^0l6:&:coiitiected matters • ;P,agel6 of 22 ?\ v thus' the fair market value of land on a particulardate in the two villages would'be comparable. ' . - . ' .26. While assessingthefair rn^atetValue ofthfland situated in villageBurari, whrch was acquired pursuantto\nbtifications, dated 2:4.07.1998and. 18.07:2003 issued .under Section of the Land AcquisitionAct I had consideredthe rfiat&rial on / record i.e. the evidence>in my decision,pronounGed on

7.6.2,011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being LA. : Appeal No.971/20d8titled Raibal:&dr^. Vs. Union nf inHi^ Qr^ In the said decision,,1 had assessedthe fair marketvalue of agriculturalland at ^1,60,580.82per acre for CategoryA; land, no,44,522.73 per acre -for Category B iand ancl ?9,28,464.:65per acre for Category,Cland ,pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquired.pursuantto. • notification dated 18.07:2003 had beek assessed:|)yme-at ?19,2,0,568/-per acrefor CategoryAliand and k7,28i5i2Aper ,acre for Category B[and. In lai'sinoh's {supra), I had; assessedthe fair marketvalue of lahd,in10 vi^ S.Ho.. Village Name i: .Pooth Khurd

2.

¶3•Holambi Kalan t-Bawana

¶4'Khera Khurd . Date of Notification, under Section 4

7.8.2000 ,7;8.200:0 7:8.2000.

11.9.2000; £A.App.No.999/2010.& connectedmatters Faih;: market valu^ (in lakhs per acre) fl4.75 fdr Category 'A' .^4:3728 for Category 'B' ^14.75 514;.75 for •Category 'A' ^4.38125 for Category 'B' ^14,835 for Category 'A' T14.46413 for Category 'B.': . r--

¶5Narela

2.5.2001 ?16.165 , for Category 'A' f15.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Cateqorv 'B'

¶7Alipur ',

22.8.2001 n6:745 for Category 'A' ?16.4-3811 for Category'B'

8., Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 ^ , 16.745 for Category 'A' \ n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9, Raja pur Kalan .

22.8.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Cateqorv 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.295 . 11. Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ^ . ^8.655 .12. Shahpur Garhi'

23.5.2002 , ^18.655 13; Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶14' Alipur

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15. Sanoth

27.1.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' ?18.94912 for. Category 'B', fl8.47539 for Category '.C

16., Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 ( ^ ' ' T19.435 for Category 'A'. . ' n8.94912 for Category 'B' fl8.47539 for. Category 'C • /^/' Sinqh's case (supra) 1 had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time to time.and found the same not to be the ipse dixit of the'. LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojmectedmatters / Page,18'of22 Government officers and had found-pot onlyVfatidnaiebut a . reflection of urbanization inipactihg .such .increa^se. With reference to the decisions of four Pivision Benches of this : ' Court reported as 20:06 IV AD Delhi 13 GairdiSindti-^ iini A , , • Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander I/?, nm 111 (7nna) . DLT 95 Hukum Sinoh Vs. UOI and an unreporteddecisipn in • i l-A.App:N0.866/2005MahknderSinoh Vs, UQ! &Qi^s: deGid% j -on 11.5.2006wherein based pn sale deeds aridother;evidence: ..land pricewas determinedon variousdates betweenthe years.,' ^ ,19:93 to 1996-andin reJatiPnto the. minimumpricefixed by th© - Gover^nmentI had highFighted in ^paras-SO to-.5:^ cif?the said;' dedsion as under:-:• ; ; . ' v ' K • v - " '

¶50The aforesaid judgrrients noted in the/preGeding paragraphs as also the various notificatiorisJssjued from^ time to time by the Governmentof NCT Delhi'notifying/^. minimum,price for agricultural lands in DeChi as tabulated : • by me in para 7 above bring outtwo very importantfacts/ relevant to determine the groWth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years corhnfiehcing• .ffQm the year 1.990'. As of 27.4.1990minimum price was". X4.G5 lakhs per acre which roseto flO lakhs per acre as •Qf 1.4.1997i,e. the increaseis ?5.35:lakhs spread over 7i . ' years whicK^ives usa 115.054%increase in 7 years and; the averagepriceincreasewould be 16.436%. The price • rise over the nextl year is by 11.2% and thereafter by / ^ 11^ for the next 2 years and 11.5%for the nextlyeari.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to. urbanization between the year 1990 and 19:97 prices grows fairiy,' , . sharply and good icorroboi'a.tiveevidence for this would ' . . be the decision of the Division Bench of this Couri: in ; ' , , case (supra), which 1 have discussed in pat^a 49 above. •' ., ';

¶511need to elaboratea littlemore,with respectto the decision in Gajrafs case. Discussing the evidence : .pertaining to fair market value of agrict^ltural'l^ :, village Holambi Kalanas of 15.11.1996,in paras'9 to 17': :LAApp;No:999/201,0& Pagel9 bf22 '

•N \ $-81 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 414/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with l^lr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus JAGAT SINGH & ORS Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG