Union of India v. Rex U & A Remedies Pvt Ltd & Anr

ORDER

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. Respondents SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % • ludament Reserved On: 19^^''Auoust 2011 ludameht Delivered On: 1&^ September. 2011 + LA.APP. CM No.6549/2 999/2010 & Oil (Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH ! Through: Mr.B.S. Mr.Deep Mr.N.S.' Appellant , Mann, Advocate ak Khosia, Advocate and Negi, Advocate. /s. UOI & ANOTHER Through: Mr.Sanjc & Mr.Sa' Nawani, Kaomud ... Respondents ay Poddar, Senior Advocate njay Kuniar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K i Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AND + LA.APP. 961/2010, No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100 LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM 7/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010, LA APP ^ No.12865/2011, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP. CM 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/201] LA.APP. 246/2011 LA.APP. 298/2011 LA.APP. 386/2011 LA.APP. 397/2011 163/2011 248/2011, 375/2011, 394/2011, 407/2011. 11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.AEa_^4Z/2ail ,CLA.APPr387/20ia1 LA.APP. LA^ .APP. LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 & Award No. 06/2002-2003,Village-BhalswaJahangirPuri) A^ D LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters \0 I' + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 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. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 (Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

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

¶2To be referred to Reporte CM No.12871/20.11, LA.APP. LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. .1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. .1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. .1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, .5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, H4/2011. Sec.

30.07.1998 & lage-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) r or not? 3, Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

¶1I proceed with an apology to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time then to a nojtification issued prior in point of time; but the reason is that learned counsel for arguments with respect to the required price to be suitab owners had addressed notification issued later and had y reduced pertaining to notification which was issued earlier in point of time.

¶2Land hieasuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangir Puri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters to a notification

15.09 2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, nannely. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. T riis was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following due process, announced his award bearing Land Acquisition Collector 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 bigh lal<hs per acre i.e. fair market at ?13.82 lakhs per'acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land Section 18 of the said Act. a, which is equivalent to ^13.82 value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed ssessment made by Land owners sought reference under he Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or ?14,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector: as well a s 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

01.04.20C 0, notified vide Circular

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

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was is learned Reference Court gra sued on

15.09.2000, but ited appreciation for the said period of IpS days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the pri ce ?13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010 &'connected matters J

¶5Another parcel of Ian situated in sanne reve J ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, Tue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section of the Lar d Acquisition Act 1894,

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster', This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior by a declaration under Section 1998. After following due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed fair market v ^2,33,333 per bigha which is acre.

¶6Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land alue of the acquired at equivalent to ^11.20 lakhs per 5sessment made by Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.l] lA/2008 titled Chandrawati Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired at ?11,46,670/- per acre. The difference : in destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular

25.7.1997 same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. lollector adopting the land rate with effect from

1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment m @ 11% per annum for i/vell as the owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat:ers V 16'04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned > . •above. i y. is.' On behalf of owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on following documentary evidence:-

(a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification hibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in residential commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which is stated to be close to village Bhala at ^5830/- per square rr acre it was urgec jswa jahangir Purl, was fixed eter or ?2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of n,17,96,200/- per acre.

(b) rate charged commercial plot in Sanja> terms of the Resolution by MCD for allotment of Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot developed plots to the square meter Exhi Resolution No.610 decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ?4,500/- per sqij transporters

(a) ?425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be material good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters J documents, learned co argued that rate aforenoted, which was e would evidence that fai land comes to ?17,I9,85 on the brochure of DDA it was argued'fjiat as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met ranging between ^23.7/ according to learned col unsel for owners stated in resolutions pplicable for the year 1976, " market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to ^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair market \/alue as of 15.9.2000 would be ^24,76,592/-per acre

(c) Learned .counsel for owners also placed reliance on the auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, " the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square •e in Jahangir Puri at a price lakh to ^28.4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of ^14,36,36,363 per acre 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), where^underland measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ ^32,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, learned counsel urged th to ?56,93,163/- or m,g at the price per acre comes 6,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters \ Gontehded that this sale deed should be relied upon, after malting a reasonable deduction towards development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Purl. Another ernnine the fair market value ural in village Bhalswa sale deed

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby measuring 4-16 bigha situated in Mamurpur was sold to R upon an Agreement to S executed by^'one Shri village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996.

¶9Per. contra, Sh.Sanjay , appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir revenue estate of village .adha 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 leil (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.BLitterfly^ whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996, Q ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that was in the revenue estate of Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell Poddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of ^1,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per annum is to be given on said value. the price as on the date of the notificationunder Section 4 comes to ei,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would •rice of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt i;he price of developed liand for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters Page 7 of22 i fixing tine marl<et value of undeveloped agriculturaT having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed fair I price much higher than the one so has learned Reference market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit ,R-2 Court.

¶10It m'ay be noted that wh above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA en judgment was reserved in the 19^'^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition •App.No.266/2008 titled laiSingh Vs. (JO! & Ann in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals _ and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response counsel for the owners 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 deposition of Stiri Trilok Z\\^w^{HalqaPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs Union of India in which he h area while proving the Al<s Si. as explained the topology of the ra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa JahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated,in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burariare situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadii and Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipal.thala are situated Puri. West and villages Bharola and ' n the South of. village Jahangir . , LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matti:ers

¶121 may additionally note that lay out plan of the National Capital Territory Government of NCT Delhi w Jahangir Puri is situated bn th village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due nature. In the decision reported as Amar Singh Vs. Union of it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had \ if emergency i.e. the year 1975-that the two subject acquisitions India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) A81, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during: the period c

¶76It has to be remembered of Delhi, published by ould reveal that village Bhalswa IB eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.1. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Aljpur, MamqorDur.(Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.1.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the area was of a kind where to urbanization was of a weak were also for re-sgttlenient of.slum and J.J.Clusters.

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

0.266/2008 iai Sinah Vs. UOi &

12.8.2011 had yet to be pronounced on; 19.8.2011, vyhen instant appeals were.reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 a.hd 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-We? villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Bawana, r had noted t t Delhi being revenue estate of ' Garhi, Sanoth, Allpur, Narela, , Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat topology of the area •LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 9 of22 i. constituted a 'V at the point Road i.e. NH-1 Rohtak common point, proceeding

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/ of intersection wliere G.T.Karnai Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi iviandi. it heeds to be highliglited that village Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1. In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notifications issued in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the owners had relied upon the sale deed 1) sale deed

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. same sale deeds on which learned counsel for reliance upon as noted in sut In the said judgment dated two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced here

¶21The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh per the former, fair me comes to ^26.75 lakhs ?63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected owners have placed i-para

(d) of para 8 hereinabove.

3.8.2011, I have discarded these IS recorded in paragraphs 21 to jnden-is predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4.2001. As rket value for the former per acre and the latter

(g) The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable 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 deposing in Court in LAC No;68/2005 had'stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religiouspurposeand was being used for a religious purpose. The sale dedd Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters been held not to be rel fair market value of reasoning it was purchased by a Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated pay the price for the sai only plot of the requ able evidence to determine agricultural lands on Non Government Organization" as per ister Annie, the secretary of chat the organization had to d piece of land as it was the site size suitable for requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee. 22, As held in the dec sions reported as 1995 (1) SGC: 717 Land Acouisition Officer Eluru & Ors. \/s. .Isti Rohini & Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd.'Raufuddin I/5. Land Acquisition Officer ansactions evidenced in a Jered in evidence by virtue 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 (Refer para 13) sale tr sale deed which are ten of Section 51A of the L. reason there may which have led the buye without being . influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bi studied the market and available in be special circumstances , to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an eiqually well informed seller need by any special cy to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all area; has understood 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 offair marl<etvalue ofthe lands in the area. Iwould be failing if Ido not highlightthat the Union of India had relied 20_5.2002 which was accepted by the learned pertaining to the notification dated upon the sale deed dated

27.1.2003 where-under Rajapur Kalan was sold agricultural land in village by an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much k:sserprice i.e. ^17,74,109/- per acre as against th ^63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per 'acre for Ex.PV e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28.89 V-l/B. 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 I concur, afore-noted reasons in para a reasons to hold that advisabjy not be gooc marl<et value of subjec ibove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair :t 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 have been acquired and when the acquisition, is of such large an area, it would make all the more a )ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result would be failing not to decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being decision

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. UP! & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale!deed therein by which L&T had purchased 8 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 fjancy for the said land and hence price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported area, was rejected by t question, with: suitable d he Court and the price in eduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should, be treated as tt" ie instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignoresthe reasoning in the.decisibn of the Di\ 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed on ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative therein was reduced by would be the same as w;o reference to the averag of the market value, ,biit found that if the price 1/3'"'', the price arrived at Jid be price arrived at with e rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters / produced by, the Govern n,37,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ^2,15,160/- per bigha, from sum of ^3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 1993 a Section of the Land

24.7.1995

16.11.1995 Court determined fair market \'alue as of the said dates at same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. 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 f 1/3'"'': would be deducted ,600/-. It may^ further be said judgment the year of nd notification under Acquisition Act was dated ^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, years had required to be t once again, that I have noted inherent appreciation for given. I would highiigl" hereinbefore already contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."

¶16For the reason^ therein, I reject these two sale deeds in present case also as reliable good evidence tO' determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir l^uri.

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

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre, land, was sold at fl5,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the {Drice, as pe owners was ^15,70,000/- per r the own showing of the land acre as on

01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters difficult to, comprehend 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 puzzle that 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 of its decision, learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has pp special considerations n informed willing buyer . without being influenced by particular land, and had thus informed and there being a s have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with ned that the said price was for 3t the price settled between an an informed willing seller special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefr^om fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed.. issue in my decision

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Singh 1/5. UP! & Ann i.e. where an abnormally high price for a'parcel of land is with evidence, of neither buyer nor seller being well-pecial feature qua the land and good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy. Which observations have already been extracted by'me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reite

¶20As regards auction rat situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen "ate the same. es of developed plot of Transport Nagar, I do not find ts of the learned counsel for the owners concur with decision of the learned Reference Court contained In paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as LM LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters V. Chand l/s. Union of India 2009

(15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots.or flats by

¶21In my decision iai Sinaii Vs. UOi & Ors., I ha vidence relating to auction rates DDA.

3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 d extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case with reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DDA an and findings in para 29 to 31 are extracted here under:-

¶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 Nareia Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai render this evidence as the value of land in the s

¶30It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area and Nareia Residential S acquired a building pc would', be what would building potentiality wou eveloped plots were allotted by d DSIDC. Relevant observations of the decision in iai Sinaii's case 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same 3er which were noted by the lhand's case (supra), v^hich most unreliable to determine jbject cases. as held even by the learned with development of Rohinj Residential Scheme :heme, the subject lands had tentiality, but question be value to which Id translate itself.

¶31I hold .that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the/ observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Ciiands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I prorhise the reader of the decision, 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 & connected matters V: crystallized.

¶23. I reiterate the reasoning allotted developed plots in Sa price at which PDA sold dev

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chands case (supra) Suprenne Court held that such raw data was nneaningless was too inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be to hold that price at which MCD njay Gandhi Transport Nagar and , eloped plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to price n()tified 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 sahie relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chands case (supra) wherein this kind of l (discussed discarded with where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^ 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC village Burari is on the east of and indeed the plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri he outer ring road as we travel evidence was specifically reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I n NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil and Burari are separated by t towards Mubarka Chowk from Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous 3urudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and ).. LA.App.No!999/2010 & connected matters thus the fair marl<et value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.

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

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

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. 1/5. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land at ^11,60 land, no,44,522.73 per ac d assessed the fair market value ,580.82 per acre for Category A re for Category B ?9",28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification

24.7.1998. notification

18.07.200^ The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at n9,20,568/- per acre for Category A land and n7,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. In lai Singh's case {supra), I had assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages as unden-S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth khurd

7.8. 2000 ^14.75 for Category 'A' ?14.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Hblambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 ?14.75

¶3Bawana

7.8. 2000 n4.75 for Category 'A' ^4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd US .2000 n4.835 for .Category 'A' ^4.46413 for Category 'B' LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters V

¶5Narela

2.5 .2001 n6.165 , for Category 'A' n5.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi^Kalan 22, 8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶7Alipur

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 ?

16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 . n6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.1 2.2001 n7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655 ,12. Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶27L.2003 n9.43;5 for Category 'A' nS.94:912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Kalan

¶271.2003 ^9.435 for Category 'A' ?18.94912 for Category 'B' fl8.47539 for Category 'C pra) I had also analyzed by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit of the

¶27In lai Singh's case (su minimum rates enhancec to time and found the same LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojinected matters \. 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 ACi Delhi 13 Gairai Singh Vs. UP! & ^, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander 1/5. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. ^(9/and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahehder Singh Vs. UO! & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t various dates between the years 0 the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under;- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the \/arious notifications issued from time to time by the Go'/ernment of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in.Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ?4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is T5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increa rise bver the next 1 yea 11%. for the next 2 years as of

1.4.2001. . It sh between the year 199C sharply and good corrot be the decision of the

¶51I need to elaborate decision in Gairais ca pertaining to fair market value of agricultural in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 e would be 16.436%. The price • is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e. Dws that due to urbanization, 1997 prices grows fairly orative evidence for this would Division Bench of this Court in Gairai"s case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above. a little more with respect to the SG. Discussing evidence LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters ;U Court discussed valuation on basis agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annunri was ^95,00C/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized land price at ^9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of prices of comparable lands in surrounding areas incljuding potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come, up and based on sale instances found that based on the 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 Government as per policy

1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as age that the potentiality had been Government issued on w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the pric

¶52The decision in to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court vi e was no,03,364/- per acre. hender Singh's case, 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. agricultural land in Delhi had noted that notwit projecting la potentiality, the same h commercial industrial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality istanding 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 village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the market ecisions in Gairafs caise LA.App.No;999/20r0 & connected matters Mahender Singh's case 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 could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial industrial probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evicence in the instant case, apart froni the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which 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 learned Land 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 fair market value of agricultural lands would be ^19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and, 13 biswa of land which was sold for ^5,39,690/- and ^70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ?6,09,850/- spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2 (?5,39,690/- +^70,160/-) were ice ^^17,74,109/- per acre as of

0.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than th e minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that Learned Reference Court has rightly a has relied upon the correct ev Jopted the correct principle and dence 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 & connected matters Section 4 of tfie Land Acquis furtlner enhance tlie compe dismiss all appeals and cross land owners or the Union of

¶29I leave the parties to ition Act and finding no scope to nsation or to reduce the same I objections, whether filed by the dia. r their own cost. In bea SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

o $-70 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 387/2011 UNION OF INDIA Through: Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. % versus REX U & A REMEDIES PVT LTD & ANR Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG