Union of India v. Yogender Kumar & Ors

ORDER %

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm f'^n , ..iJ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludqment Reserved dn: 19'^"Aunnc^f-ymi ludqment DelivemdOn-igth Sentpmber. 207 7 LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/12011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH-r, ^ Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mr.DeefsakKhosia, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. Vs. UOI & ANOTHER Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate & Mr.Sa Nawani, Kaomud njay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K i KIran, Advocates for R-1 AND ^ 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2.010 & CM 10017/2010& CM No.15181/2011 nn'-D^/ 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010 LA App' ir«SS£"'Li"A?r•IS'i rs 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. .LA'APP. 247/2011,' U.APP.' LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15 09 2000 R, Award No, 06/2002-2003,Viliage-BhalswaJahang^ Ah D LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattjrs o + 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. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. /2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 244/2011, LA.APP. •245 LA.APP.346/2011,LA.APP. 348/2011 &CM No.15194/2011^ LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.l LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4|14/2011. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated

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

¶1Whether the Reporters of to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporte A.DEEP NANDRAJOG local papers may be allowed r or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? j PRADEEP IMANDRAIOG.I. j i t

¶1Iproceed with an apologj/to the reader by referringto a notification issued later in point of time and then to a notification issued prior in poirt of time; but the reason is that the learned counsel for the land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notification which was issued earlier in point of time. ,2. Land measuring 758-01 bjgha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswajahapgirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmaders I i'il to a notification dated

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 189^, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market 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 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 Rai Sinah 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired ^14,56,963 per acre. following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai <r land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or

¶4it needs to be highlightei Acquisition Collector as well a i that both i.e. the learned Land s the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the ,acquired land, adopted the minimum price f6r agricultural land fixed by the Government as on 01.04.20C|0, notified vide Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destina lions were reached inasmuch as learned Land Acquisition compensation, did not grant e Collector, while assessing ppreciation 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 (a) 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000and the price^3.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters ! m j

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

30.07.1998,for the same pufcjlic purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitationof by a declaration under Section 1998. • After following the due Collector announced an award JJ 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 ?11.20 lakhs per assessed fair market ^2,33,333 per bigha which is acre.

¶6Dissatisfied with the ajssessment mad^ by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land| owners sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Act. The L.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/2008 titled Chandrawati 1/9. Union ofIndia, assessedthe fpir marketvalue of the acquired land at ^1,46,670/- per. acre. The difference; in the destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 same reason as noted notification.dated

15.9.2000 i.e. :ollector 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.

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment m well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmaters • (i; ;! Court by way of the appeals above.

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

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

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by and cross objections mentioned libit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in •esidential commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which is stated to swa Jahangir Puri, was fixed eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted be close to village Bhala at.?5830/- per square m acre it was urgec 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 M.CD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanja^ terms of the Resolutior r Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby. MCD decided to allot developed plots to the square meter Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots transporters @ T425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar @?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters P documents, learned counsel for land owners argued that rate stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, • marl<et value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made.on account of the development costs, fo|r 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 placed reliance on . the Rohini Residential Scher would evidence that fai land comes to ^17,19,85 that even if 50% deducti on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met ranging between ^23.72 according to. learned col for land owners also auction record of plots in ne in the year 1997-98 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, r the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square re in Jahangir Purl 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|ld be effected therefrom pertainingto undevelope|dagriculturalland,

(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunderland measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ t3 learned counsel urged th 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.999/2010 connectedmat:ers 'W'.

¶9t contended that this saje deed should be relied upon, after making a reas development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another. (Exhibit PW-15/2), whe bigha situated in Mamurpur was sold to R executed by one Shri. society 'M/s.Butterfly', w aid as good evidence o-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, jonable deduction towards termine the fair market value ;ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 :reby land measuring 4-16 revenue estate of village adha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/-p^r acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was 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 BhalswaJahangirPuri and thus was pressed in Ffair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^oddar learned ;senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of 1if 12% appreciation per annum the price as on the date of the notificationunderSection4 comes to ?1,94,782per 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 i;he price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmat):ers Page 7 of22 • I •Ill fixing tine market value of Inaving a vast area. Learne learned Land Acquisition C market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 Court. .

10.. It may.be noted that vyh Bn judgment was reserved in the above captioned matters on 19'^ August, 2011, decision had been reserved for. judgment in a batch of land acquisition appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.266/2008titled JaiSinah 1/5. UOL&Anr. 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 submitted that in response counsel for the land owners undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the Dllector has assessed. fair price much higher than the one so has learned Reference to arguments of learned the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the depositionofShrl TrilokChand\Halqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5 Union of India in which he f area while proving the Al<s Si. Jahangir Puri. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated, in as explained the topology of the Ta Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa /ould reveal that ;Village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situatedin tine East, villagesSamaipurBadii and. Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puri. West and villages Bharola n the South of village jahangir LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters

¶12! may additionally notfe that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory j of Delhi, published by Government of NGT Delhi would reveal that Village Bhalswa Jahangir Purr is situated on .t-h^ eastern side of G.T.KarnalRoad i.e. NationalHighway No.l. VillagesBadii, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, MamoorDur(Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangirPuri, post acquisitionof agriculturallanjds 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 village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinofi l/s. Union nf India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c

¶76It has to be remembered it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had f emergency i.e. the year 1975-that the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlementofslum and J.J.Clusters.

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

0.266/2008 iai Sinah l/s. UOi &

12.8.2011 had yet to be pronouncedon IS.8.2011,when instantappealswere reserved for judgment,has since been pronouncedby 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-WestDelhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, , Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area • • • • !i LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatiers ; Page9of22 , I -T-constituteda 'V at the point of intersectionwinere G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point,, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi IMandi. It needs to be iiigiiltghtedthatvillageBhalswaJahangir Purl is outsidethe 'V aforesaid and as explainedhereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-l.

¶15In the.appeals relatingto the said 10 villageswhere land were acquired pursuant to different notificationsissued from time to time I had dealt with notificationsissued in the year 2000, 2001,2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel 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 sut -para (d) of para,8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasojis recorded in paragraphs21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is predicated on the 2 sale js dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4;2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to f26,75 lakhs per acre and the latter A7P laUhc- -i-L-_ i_^ . U " ?63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable , , . w — uo iciiauitr evidence to determine fair market ;value of agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale the villages in question on sale deed . Ex.PW-1/3 was JS trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who ' deed in evidence, while No.68/2005 had'stated that to his knowledgethe land was. purchased for religiouspurposeand was being used for a religious purpose. The sale dee LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters d Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held not to be rel fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated Organization" as per jister Annie, the secretary of that the organization had to pay the price for the sai|J piece of land as. it was the only plot of the requ site size suitable for the requirement.of the organizationand is being used for destitute women circumstance, personal !

¶22As held in the dec sions reported as 1995 (1) SCC lll Land Acouisition Officer E!urn & Qrs. I/?. IstiRohini&Anr (Refetipara 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin 1/9. Land Acquisition Offirer .e. there was 0 the vendee. a special (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 , , . , . . - to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informedseller without being influenced by any special fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed bi studied the'market and yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good indexoffair marl<ietvalue ofthe lands in the area. would be failing if 1do not highlightthat the 7n'? dated R.;. was accepted by the learned pertaining to the notification dated

27.1.2003 where-under.agriculturaland in village Rajapur Kalan.was sold by an agriculturistto an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. T17,74,l09/- /1the price which comes to p3 478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No;999/2010&connectedmatters % Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from t ie reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which 1 concur, afore-noted reasons in para a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc bove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land when the acquisition is of have been acquired anc such large an area, it would make all the more a ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer. , ' would be failing not to note an unreported^ counsel ^Sh.l.S.bahiya

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead eclsion cited by learned Deing. the decision dated matter being LA.App.h (since, deceased) thru L

0.193/2006 PraiaD Singh Rs ]/s. UOi & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale had purchased 8 bigha deed, therein by which L&T and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence price reflected therein could not be ice of value of land in the he Court and the price in eduction on account of the treated as a good evide area, was rejected by t question, with suitable d parcel of land being large/ was accepted by the Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th market value. The argur in the decision of the Di\- 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed on he instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair nent ignores the reasoning isipn Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative of the market value, but found that if the price 1/3''^, the price arrived at jld be price arrived at with therein was reduced by would be the same as wo 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& connected matters Page 12 of 22 • O: ill produced by the Govern

3.7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ment were giving a price of 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 ^2,15,160/- per bigha, f 1/3'"'^ would be deducted ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd notification under Acquisition Act was dated from the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that .in the sale was 1993 a Section 4, of the Land determined fair market \ 24,7.1995 16,11.1995 Court alue as of the said dates at same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated sale deed in question as the. basis for if ;it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that 1 have hereinbefore already noted • inherent contradiction in the valijie of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and thi destructive evidence of 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 Jand in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.

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

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

¶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 s itself is intrinsic mutually the 2 sale deeds reflecting LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters difficult to comprelnend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ^18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzlethat in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs 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 39 of its decision, the learned. Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ned that the said price was for special considerationsand npt the price settled between an informed willing buyer and |an informed willing, seller and ! * . without being influenced by particular land, and had thus special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 008 lai 5inoh I/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 same not to be good evidenceto determinefair

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where ah abnormally high p evidence of neither bu market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen land owners concur wit of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by-me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. 1reiterate the same.

¶20As regards.auction rates of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, i do not find ts of the learned counsel for the h the decision of the learned ReferenceCourt contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premisedoh the decisionof thp,SupremeCourt reportedas La! LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769.' Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots or flats by evidence relating to auction rates DDA.

¶21In my decision dated 2^.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh l/s. UOi &Ors.. Ih^d extensivelydiscussedthe law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case , with reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DDA ar and findings in para 29 to 31 are extracted hereunder:-

¶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 esidential Schem:e developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same Der which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which by DSIDC and Narela R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in render this evidence as the value of land in thes

¶30It is no doubt true, Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area, and Narela Residential S acquired a building po would be what would buildingpotentialitywould translate itself.

¶31I hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping m view the observation and the findings of the in case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence is reliable. On the Issue of potentiality^relatingItself to the value, I promise the shaM®h decision,tb deal with the same while I hal be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. eveloped plots were allotted by d DSIDC. Relevant observations 3f the decision in jaiSinah's case most unreliable to determine jbject cases. as held even by the learned with development of ^ Rohini Residential Scheme :heme, the subject lands had tentiality, but the question be the value to which LA.App.No.999/2010&comectedmatte'rs 'V

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

¶231reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and, flats would be irrelevant to determine fair marl<etvalue 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 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 discussed discarded with where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I n to be enhanced with referenceto L&DO rates noting that Iam concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

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

¶26While assessingthe fair jmarketvalue ofthe land situated acquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of had considered the material on my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of .LA.Appeals, lead matter being LA. Appeal No.971/2008titled Rsibd!& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60 •in village Burari, which was a dated

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I record i.e. evidence in d assessed the fair market value ,580.82 per acre for Category A land, tl0,44,522.73 per, acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464..65per acre for Category C land pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuantto notification dated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at ^19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland,and ?17,28,512/-per acre for Category B land.\ In iai. Sinail's ca.sp [supra), I had assessed the fair market value S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

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

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 ^4.75 3, Bawana

7.8. 2000 i ?14.75 for Category 'A' ?14.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.c i! o o o fM .^14.835 for •Category 'A' ;^14.46413 for Category 'B' EA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters /'! h E'f)

¶5Narela

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

¶6Holambi Kalan

¶228.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

7.. Alipur

¶228.2001 ^6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 i ^

16.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

22.|8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ne.43811 for Category 'B' -10. Sanoth

7.1 2.2001 n7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ^8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶14Alipur.

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶271.2003 n9.435 for Category 'A' n8.94:912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C 1-6. Rajapur Kalan

27.1L.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' ^18.94912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category 'C 27-In Jai Sinqh's case (supra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Governmentfrom time to time,and found the same not to be the ipse dixit oi the LA.App.No.999/2010&co;Qnectedmattdrs p^geisof22 Governmentofficers 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 Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah l/s. UP! & Court reported as 2006 IV AC AJ2L_, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander 1/5-. um. in (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinph Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005W.3/7e/7o^g/-5/77^/7Vs. UQ! & Qrs. 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 GovernmentI had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:-

¶50The 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 bing out two very importantfacts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of anriri ill-i irni . land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t agricultural land in Del from the year 1990. As T4.65 lakhs per acre whi of 1.4.1997 i.e. the incre hi over the years commencing of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ch rose to ^10 lakhs per acre as _- . ^ase is ^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 ^ y^sr is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11^ for the next 2 years and 11.5%for the next year i.e. as of 1.4 2001. It. sh|bws that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly Sharply and good corroborativeevidence for this would DG tnG dGCision of thG nivi^inn R(:inr-h o-F -hhir-be the decision of the Gajrafs case (supra), wh above.

¶51^ Ineed to elaboratea little more with respectto the decision in Gajrafs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural,.land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in paras'9to 17 Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters .'f the_ Court discussed the valuation oh the basis of agricultural yield and foL per annum was ^95,00C und that the gross return per acre 3/- for multiple cropped land and haying good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ^9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussingthe second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 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 th^ 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 worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76!l21/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as ag to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court w commercial indu agricultural, land in Delhi had noted that notwit projecting : and la potentiality, the same h that the potentiality had been Government issued 3n w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions ^ inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at no lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlightingthat the pries was ^10,03,364/-per acre.

¶52The decision in MchenderSinoh's c'ase, pertaining -ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential, strial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality istanding the. Master Plan so. nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality of the notification with concerned, virtually no c evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which Division Bench was evelopment had taken place in ,, • ^ — iiuvj uuixcii i^iauc III Village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had ovr>of-f-/^W r a_ • i . exploited the potential, para 49 above there is As 1 have already highlighted in . - a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the. market actually grows. The decisions in Gairaj's caise and i . - ' LA.App.No;999/2010& connectedmatters Mahender Sinah's - highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between ,1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about

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

¶53The empirical evic ence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras relying upon, being fane market value, we have v by learned Land jrned Reference Court has given upon and for which I have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not iful sale deeds, to determine fair iwith 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 a9,16,040/- 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 {^5,39,690/- ^70,160/-) were ice ^"17,74,109/- per acre as of :0.5.2002. mean that ^6,09,850/- spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2

¶28In the absence of any cogentevidenceplaced on record by eitherpartiesotherthan the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, 1" hold that the Learned RefeienceCourt has rightly acdopted the correct principleand has relied upon the correctevidenceand has given the correct appreciationsby suitablyincreasingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters % % Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cross objections,whetherfiled by the •land owners or the Union of India.

¶29I leave the parties to bear their own cost.. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010& coiinectedmatte:xs d (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-73 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 397/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with I^Ir.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus YOGENDER KUMAR & ORS Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG