Union of India v. Surender Yadav & Anr

ORDER %

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm V 1, W * ISM THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHi - ^ ludamentReservedOn: 19^^Aunn^i-ynri - ^ , , , lodgment DeliveredOn: 19^'^Septemben 20Tl I:A.APP. 999/2di0 & CM No.6549/2011(CrQss-Objection) • / : .i-Appellant ' Hr.B,S.Mann, Advocate Mr.DeepakKhosia,Advocate and ^ Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. • Vs. • , / • ^ UOJ&ANGLER ^: Respondents ^ Through: MjnSanjayPdddar,SeniorAdvocate &| Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, |\-!lr.Sachin , '^fwani, Mr.SiddharthPanda,and Ms.K ] ^^ofT^udlKiran, Advocates-fonR-l- • , and / ; ; : : + , LA.APP. 961/2010, .LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM No.12885/2011,.LA.APp. 1007/2010&CM No 15181/2011 ' LA.APP. 100:9/2010,1 LA.APP. 1010/2^0 S 6/20^11°!°TM5/2011, :LA.APP.' 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011'' CM 41/2011, LA.APP. 89/2011 LA APP 160/2011, LA.APP. lei^luiAPP:^ LA.APP. 24q/2011, LA.APP.'247/2011,rLA.APP 29W2011, LArAPP. 347/2011' LA.APP 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011, LA.APP. 38:7/2011.'!L4''APp' 407/2011' ^?2011, LA.APP.':40!6/2011[{ffiiAPP;.' ^'. (Relating;to. Notification u/Sec. 4 -dated 15 09 2000 ^ward No. 06/2002-2005,VillagefBhalswaJaS^ • • ' •' ' -and | '• • LA.App.No.999/2blO&connectedmatters Page1of22 + , 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. 20.0/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011/ LA.APP. : 202/2011, LA.APP. 2i6/2Pll, LA.APP. 240/20iiV LA.APP. 241/20M, lA.APP. 242/2011, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. 244/2011, LA.APP, 245/2011,. LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011,LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011& CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011^, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. 393/2011, LA.APP.'398/2011, LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, LA.APP. 4.10/2011, •LA.APP. 414/2011. (Relating;to NotiTicatidn u/Sec. 4 dated '30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001,Village-Bhalswajahangir Puri) : ; CORAM: . : . : : ; ; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEPNANDRAJdG • 1,, Whether tine Reportersof local papers may be'allowed' to see the judgment? •2. Jo,be referred to. Reporter or not?

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

1.. I proceed with an apologyto the readerby referringto a. notification issued later in point of time and .then to notificationissued prior in point of time; but the reason is that the learned cdunsel for, the land owners had addressed argumentswith respectto the notification'issuedlaterVndhad required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notificationwhich was ipsuejiearlierin pointoftime;: . Land measuring 758-01 ,bigha situated in the revenue estate of viJIage BhalswaJahangirPuri"was acquired pursuant •LA/App,No.999/2010&coimectedm^ '• Page2of22-to a notification dated- ],5,09.2000-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 the due process, the ,Land Acquisition'.Collector announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002,- whereby he assessed. the'fair market value ,of the -acquired land at'^2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ^3.82 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' mad^ 'by. the Land. Acquisition Collector, the la-hd owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned. Reference.Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008. titled Rai Sinah 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired ., land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or tl4,56,963 per acre.

¶4It 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' riptification 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.' LAApp.No.999/2010c& connected-matters • ' . • Page3of22 ' •%

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

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e.,'Rehabilitationof JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declarationunderSection5 of the Act issued on 04.08.1998. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collectorannounced an award bearing No.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. •

6., Dissatisfied 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 Chandrawati 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 same reason' as noted hereinabovepertainingto the notificationdated 15.9.2000.i.e. the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoradopting the land rate notified by the Government with effect fro,m 1.4.1997 vide circular.dated25.7.1997and ignoring that the notificationin, question was issued on 30.7..1998,and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement @ 11% per annum for the interregnum period. .• '

¶7The Union of India as well as the land owners have challenged the assessmentmad.e by the Learned-Reference^ LA.App.No.999/2010& connected,matters Page 4 of22 Court by way of the appeals and cross objections .mentioned above. ' - / •

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

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

16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it disclosed its intention to charge unearned'increase in respect of developed residential and commercial properties owned by L&DO. .Relying , oh this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate.of residential,land in Azadpur,.which,isstated to \ be close to village Bhalaswa jahangir Puri, was fixed ; at ^5830/- per square meter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per ' acre and it was urged 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 : commercial plot in.Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution No.705 dated 2,3.11;,1987 < (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided t6 . allot developed plots to the transporters (a) ^^425/- per square meter and Exhibit P:W-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD decided to allot the plots 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(fe connectedmatters . ' ,, Page5of22. . (O • documents, learned Gounsel for the land owners argued that the rate stated, in the, resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year. 1976, would evidence that fair market value of developed land comes to ^17,19,857/-per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped .lands, fair market value would come to ^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasingthe'same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9:200,0 would be?24,76,592/-peracre. • ; , •

(c) Learned counsel for the land owners also placed reliance on the auction record-.of plots in Rohin.i Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and •1998-99 (Exhibits,PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). Whilerelying •; on the brochure of PDA pertaining to the year 2006, it was arg.ued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Purl' at a price ranging, between ?23.72 lakh to ?2'8.4 •lakh,, which' • according to learned counsel translates to. a price of n4,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undevelpped agriculturaj land. •

(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd . (Exhibit PW-15/1),-whereunderland measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ ?32,40,300/-' on 25.04.2001, learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/- or, ?11,86,1.69A per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' , " . Page6of22 . • contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, • after .making -a reasonable deduction: towards ' - development, cost to determine the, fair market value • .. of undeveloped agricultural land in village .Bhalswa Jahangir Puri., Ano.ther.sale deed dated; 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring' 4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of.^26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned .counsel for the land owners also, relied upon,an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit P.W-6/1) which was executed, by one Shri Khushi Ram in. favour of a , society 'iyi/s.B,utterfly',whereunder land was Agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ns lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of . village Bhalswajahangir Purl and thus was pressed in aid as good/evidence of fair market value of land in . the said village as of the date^ofthe agreement to sell' , i.e. 5.8.1996.

¶9Per 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 bigha of land in vjllage Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was sold at a price-of. ^1,40,000and urg.e.d that even if 12% appreciation,per annum is to be given on said value, the price as on the date of the notificationunder Section4 comes to ?1,94,782 per bigha, and , thus it was argued that since price of similarland is available,.,;,t' i.n the same village, it would, be imprudent td'travel to the v.- ' adjoining village.or to adopt the price of developed land for • LA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmatters • . • Page7of22 , fixing tine market value of undeveloped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned counsel/alsoargued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed,the fair •market value of the land at a price much higherthan the one, reflected in. Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference Court. . • '

¶10It may be noted that when judgmentwas reservedin the .above captioned matters on 19^^ August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgment in a batch of land acquisition, appeals,lead matterbeing LA.App.No.266/2008titledJaiSinqtir 1/?. IJO! &Ann in -which similar argumentsas were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the insta,nt appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in-response to the arguments of learned^ counsel for the ,land owners, the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier o.ccasion,may be treated,as his response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the depositionof Shri TrilokChand {HalqaPatwari) Who appeared as PW-2 in^ LAC No.112A/2008,titled Raj Sitigfi, Union of India in which he has explained the topology of the ' area while provingthe Aks 5/z/-a.Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa jahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that vijlage Kadipur , and'Libaspur are situated,in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated jh-the East, villages Samaipur Badli and Haiderpurare situated in the West and villages^'harolaand Sarai Pipalthala are situated,in the South of. villag.e Jahangir. Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010,& connectedmatters , • Page8of22 ^ ; .

¶121 may additionally note that the lay out plan, of the National Capital Territdry of Delhi, published by the Government of NCT Delhi would-reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated oh the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. VillagesBadii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs .to be highlighted that Whatever develophieht took place in the revenue estate ,of villageJahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said village was for re-settlement of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e; the character of urbanization,'in the. area, was Of a .kind where' potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported ,as Amar Sinah I/5. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 46'i, it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Jahang^irPuri in the are'a which had sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the year 1975-'

¶76It has to be rememberedthat the two subject .acquisitions were also for re-settlement of.slum and J.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinaii l/s. UO! ^ Ann which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and .had-yet to be pronounced on 19.81.2011,when instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronouncedby me oh 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that while, assessing the fair market value of the land si|:uatecl 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, H.olambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawa'na, I had noted that the topology, of the area • LA;App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page9of22 • • • / ; constituted a 'V at the point of intersection wtnere G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and RohtaI< Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a, common point, proceeding in different directions,, at Sabzi . iviandi."it needs to be l^ighlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as. explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1.

¶15In the appeals relating to the said'.10 villages where land •were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time 1 had dealt with notifications issued in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon.' 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 sub-para

(d) of para ,8;h,ereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which.are reproduced hereun'der:- > .

¶21The first argument is pi-edicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3. which.is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001, As per the former, fair market value for the former , comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ?63.478 lakhs' per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value 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 Satsang' and Suraj .Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that.to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and Was being used for a religious • ' purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App;No.999/2010&comectedmatters Page 10 of22 been held not to be'reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on' the • reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government • Organization "Christian'Organization'^and as per . the testimony of.PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of '. the organization stated that the organization had to pay the price for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of. the requisite size suitable for-the requirenient of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

22.^ As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) see 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. isti Rohini&Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC i\/lohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Arniiisitinn (Refer par^ 13). ^ale transactions evidenced,,j,na sale deed Which are tendered in evidencebyi.vinue. of.Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated' as an exemplar sale, deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyerto pay a higherprice. 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 circumstancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpiece of.land. An inforrned buyer would be one who has studied the ,market and 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 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 the learned Reference.Court.pertaining to the notification dated

27.1.2003 where-underagriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesser price i.e. ?17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which corries to ?63.478 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 Page11 of22 \V Ex.PVV-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsicevidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie . destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from the reasoningof the learned. Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds' would advisably not ,be good evidence wherefrom fair, market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason Ifind that undervarious awards nearlybetween7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisitionis of such /large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsicevidenceof the transactionbeing the result , Of a fancy of the .buyer. 1would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned, 9nn« ^ decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 • . deceased}:thm iRs i/^. l/m nrt 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 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 evidenceof value of land in the area was rejected by .the. Court and the price in question with suitabledeductionon accountof the parcehof land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instantcases the 2 sale deeds in .question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair marketvalue. The argumentignoresthe reasoning mthe decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherem the. Division Bench, did not accept the value ip.thesale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3^^ the price arrived at . would be the same as would be price arrivedat with • reference to the average rate of the sale deeds ^ produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds ,LA,App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' ' ' Page12 of22 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 ?2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3would be deducted. . from the sum of ^3,2,6,600/-. 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. ^2/15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the. Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated 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 1 have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price .;as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsi.c 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 Jn village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. . - . ;

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PVy-6/1), the land situated in village BhalswaJahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ns 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 n5,70,000/-. '

¶18Now, if the price., as .per the ow.n. showing,of. the land, owners was ^5,70,000/- per acre -as on 01.07,^2003, it is I/A.App.No.999/2010&corineetedmatters » • Page13 of22 • • •_ : • A ^ difficult to comprehend the alDnormally high value as per Ex.PW-6/1which Is dated>8.4.1996in wliich the stated price is ?18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzlethat in 1996 the price was ^18-lakhs per,acre and 7 years down the line'the.price fell to ^15.7 lakhs per acre. I need to highlighttfiat in paragraph •'39 of its decision, the learned . Reference Court, while. •,examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opined that the said price,was for \ special considerations and not the price settled between an informed Willing buyer and an infornned willing seller and .i' Without being, influenced by special-needs pertaining to a particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale deed as- • not reliable evidence wherefrom.fair market value of a large • - track of land had to be fixed'.

¶19I have discussed this issue in my decision dated

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008lai Sinah l/s. um Anr i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land,is with , evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller.being vyell-informed and there being a special feature qua the' land and have held the same not to be good evidenceto determinefair market,value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten with fancy,>which observations have already been extracted,byme hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reiterate the same.

¶20As regards. auction rates of developed plot of land , situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport.Nagar, I do not find-any substance in the arguments of the learned, counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraph5'29 and 30 which are , premisedon the decisionof the SupremeCourt reported La! LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters , Page14 of22 • 'V Chand l/s. Union of India 2^^ (15) S.CC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertainingto the evidence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.

¶21In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.lMo.266/2008 lai. Singh l/s. UOi & Qrs., I had extensivelydiscussedthe law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chand^ case with, referenceto price at which developed plots were allotted by differentagenciesi.e, DDA and DSIDC. 'Relevantobservations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in jaiSingh'scase are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now, we do not,have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC.and Narela ResidentialScheme developed by DDA. Whetherit was 20% or 75%, we do not know , The inchoate evidence has .resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in La! Cha:nd's case (supra), which, render this evidence as most unreliableto determine the value of land in the subject cases.' It is no doubt true, as held even by, the learned Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area, Ro.hini Residential Scheme and Narela ResidentialScheme, the subject lands had •' acquired, a building potentiality, but the question^ would be what would be' the value tb which, the building potentiality Would translate itself.

¶31I hold that the learned ReferenceCourt,-keeping ^ rn view the observation and the findings; of the' . SupremeCourt in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the Issue of potentialityrelating itself to the' value, I promise the reader of the deasion, to deal with the same' while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value .of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010&..connectedmatters Pagg15.of22 *1^

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

¶23I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD^ allotted developed plots in .Sanjay GandhiTransport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be . irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to .price notified by. L&DO for charging unearned increase when lease-hold, property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, S;uffice would it be to state that the same relates to developed plots and .on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case ^fsiipra) wKprPin this kind of , evidence "was specifically discussed , and discarded with reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for Rohini ResidentialScheme,.I negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO-ratesnoting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the.topologyof the area and as per the-testimony of Trilok Chand,(Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008it emerges that village Burari is on the east of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and indeed the plan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and Burari,are separated by. the outer ring road as we travel' towards Mubarka Chowk from the Tibetan Re-settlement . colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparated by 'Outer Ring Road' and, LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page16 of-22" thus the fair market value of land on a. particulardate in the two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessingtfie fair marl<etvalue of the land situated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuantto notifications dated 24,07,1998 and 18.07.2003Issued under;Sectlon4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, I had considered the. 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 Raiba!& Or-;. I/5. Union,nf x, Qrs^ In the said decision,Jhad assessedthe fair marketvalue of agriculturalland at m,60,580.82peracre for CategoryA' land, ?10,44,522.73 per, acrefor CategorV B land-and ?9,2.8,464.65'per acre for Category Cland pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquiredpursuantto notificationdated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at ?19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and?17,28,512/-per ' acre for Category Bland. In jai Singh'scase (supr^. I had assessedthe fair marketvalueof land in 10 villagesas under:- S.No. Village Name

¶1.Pooth Khurd

2.

¶3Holambi Kalan Bawana "4. Khera Khurd. Date of Notification under Section 4

7.8.2000

7.8.2000 J.8.2000

11.9.2000 . •LA.App.No.999/2010.&connectedmatters Fair market value (in lakhs per acre) ^14.75 for Category 'A' ^14.3728 for Category 'B' • m.75 ^4.75 for Category 'A' ^4.38125 for Category .'B' ?14.835 for .Category 'A' ^14-46413 for Category 'B'

5.' Narela ,

2.5.2001, ^16.165, for Cateigdry 'A' ?15.76087 for Category.'B'

¶6Hblambi Kalan

22.8.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 far Category'B'

¶7Alipur ; 22.8.2001 fie.745 for Category'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd • 22.8.2001 f

16.745 - for Category'A' n^.43811 for. Category 'B' .

¶9Rajapur Kalan .22.8.2001 T16.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Cateqorv 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12ShahpurGarhi

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 . ^18.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth

27.1.2003, •^9.435. for Category 'A' ?18.94912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category '£' • •

¶16Rajapur Ka ah . 27.1.2003 • fl9.435 . for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ^=18.47539. for. . Category 'C

¶27In iai Singh'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 the. LA.App.No.999/2010& cojinecfedmatters ij} :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 Vs. UP! & Ml., 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chancier Vs. UOI. Ill (2004)- DLT 95 Hukum Sincjh Vs. UOI and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005Mahender Sinah Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and.other evidence land price was determinedon variousdates betweenthe years 1993 to 1996 and in relationto the minimumpricefixed 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 Governfnentof NCT Delhi notifying minimum.pricefor agriculturallands 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 of 27.4.1990minimum price was ^4..-65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997i.e. the increaseis ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054%increase in 7 years and ' the averageprice increasewould be 16.436%. The price rise,overthe next 1 year.is by 11.2% and. thereafter by . 11% forthe next.2 years and,11:5%for the nextyear i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in ' Gajraj"s case (supra), which I have discussed in para-49 above. .

¶51I need to elaboratea little more with respect to the decision in Gajrajs, case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural ..land in • •village Holambi Kalan as.of 15.11.1996,in paras'9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters .• ' Page19 of22 • • the Court discussed the •valuation on the basis of agriculturalyield and found that the gross return per acre • per annum was ?95,000/- for multiple cropped land and-having good irrigationfacilities and thus capitalizedthe 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 the said sale instancesand .giving• benefit of industrializationthe land price would come to ^10,03,364/- 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 ?9,76,121/-per acre for Category 'A' lands and f9"51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands The decision highlights that the, potentialityhad been , well-factored in when the Government issued the minimum price notificationw.e.f. 1.4.1997,evidencedby. , the fact that even with respect to sale transactionsthe Court found that as against the minimum price notified lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlightingthat the price was n0,03,364/-per acre. ^2-The decision in MdhenderSinah's case, pertaining to.villageBawana, referred to by me in para 49 above highlightswith referenceto para 28 to 31 of the decision that the,Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had .been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential,, cornrnercial and industrial future exploitation of agriculturalland in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding,the Master Plan so. projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality,the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e; the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned,virtually no developmenthad.taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had ' exploitedthe potential. As I have already highlightedin. . para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the. market actually, grows. The decisions in Gairafs caise and' LA.App.No;999/2010&connectedmatters , Page20 of22 !' • -• ' • \ ' •' V. ^ Mabender Singh's • case highlight' that potentiality translated itself i.nto a reality between 1990 and 1997 when "prices rose by about

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

¶53The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds^relied upbn by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and^forwhich I,have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kaian 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 oh the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was .sold for ?5,39,690/- and ?70,160./- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (?5,39,690/- + ?70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ?17,74,109/- per acre as of , the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002. . , '

¶28In the absence of any cogent'evidence placed on record by either parties other than the minimum price notified by the Government from time' to time, I hold that .the Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle,and has relied upon the correct evidence and has,given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price.to make up the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 connectedmatters- , ' Page21 of22 Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to further enhance the compensationor to reduce the same I dismiss ail appealsand cross objections,whetherfiled by the land ownersorthe Union of India,

¶29Ileavethe partiesto beartheirown cost, , - (PRADEEPNAIMDRAJOG) SEPTEMBER19, 2011 • JUDGE mm LA.App.No.999/2010&comectedmatters' ' • p- ^ Jrdg6 Za Ox 22 '

f $-78 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI \ + LA.APP. 407/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus SURENDER YADAV & ANR Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG