Kaptan Singh Decd Thr Lrs & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.0L2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JANUARY 06,2012 pkb —GAUR) JUDGE I I IN' THE fi.lGi! COURT OF DEIJIil A1' P^iEW DELlil K^s?jyedon: November IS. 20J1 (GRID-yV) ' 1195/2008(VILLAGE-EHARTHAL) RANBJRSHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Sraita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.AnandYadav and Ms.AnitaToraar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas. Advocate. Mr.RaghiJvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.M.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rouland Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.Azam/Vnsari. Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav.,Mr.Deepak Khosla, ^4r.Sa^nitK.hosla and Mr.FJhananjay N4ehiaAvat,Advocates Mr.fi.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocaie, Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.S'i.S.R.aniela,(./Advocatesfor respondeniin appealsfiled by UGI) versus I.'^IION(.'1-INDIA& A-NR. R.espondents' Ih)-ough; Mr.Sanj&yPoddav,SeniorAd\'ocatewifh Mt.Sanjav Pathak..Mr.Morutrao.J.idha\'and M?;.NavlinSwain., Ms.K.KaumudiKiran.Advocates .U)rI.A.C/UOI Mr.AjayVenr.a,.Ms.BeenashawSoiii, Mr.Miike.sh Kumar, Mr S,K,Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal -ShanriH, Advocaie Ici'-DDA

1.A./'>PP,4,i.:,;20()-8 & CM.]'^Io.4096/2')08 (C'ross--()hiectiops"!f A. APP -i-V'/'/OO-''' L-.AFP.4^3/2i)()8:LA.APP.588/2008^ (:?.lMo.5990/20J0(Cross-Obiecllonsi;

1.A,APP.697,2008 & CM.No.43;v200'!'(Cross-Objcctions),;LA.APP.701/2008& CM.No.510/.2009 (Cros.s-Objttctionsi; I,\.APP.768''200R; 1'.A.APP.770/2008., i/...A:?p.r(i. 1l'j:j/r:00a& coiinotlcd/IppmilicifVillaBi; i•-...•MX), Nij. /'M/^OaO4, roriiicc'scJAppcjis orViila;;;-Riiwnson i'"\.'\pp 143/7010&connoacdAppealsoi Villaat:K-ochanpiir ' p ,, LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& CM,No,611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; i.A.APP.777/2008;LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No'940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.API^785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,799/2008 & CM.Mo.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP,820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008;LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572,/2009 (Cross-Ob)ections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections)

1.A.APIM032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008 i..A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7,851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,1050/2008 LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No.17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008

1.A.APP.1053/2008& CM.No.416/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008& CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA,APP'l055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(Cross-Obiections); r.A.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009(Cross-Objections); i-A-APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections); i.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l093/2008;' A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l108/2008 8c CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objectioas); LA.APP.1.109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);, LA.yVPP.l111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & • CM,No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objectioas); LA,APP.l 113/2008 & •CM,No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; .fA.APP,1116/2008: LA.APP.l 121/2008; [.A.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); !-A.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Obiections); .1 A.APP.1133/2008;LA.APP.1135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); 1A.APP. 1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 140/2008; LAAPP.l 156/2008; LAAPP.l 157,/2008;LA.APP.1158/2008 & CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA..A.PP.1161/2008;LA.APP.1166/2008 ]A.APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/200,9(Cross-Objections);LAAPP.l 168/2008 [.A.APP.1170/2008; LA.APP.l]71./2008;LA.APP.li72/2008;LA.APP.1173/2008

1.A-APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP. 1179/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008 LA.APP.1182,aOOS; LA.APP.l]83,/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections) l,A.APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.APP. 1186/2008& CM..No.7013/2009 l.'X.App,Mn. j l9,'j/?,008a conp.octedAppeal.sof VilliiKC!BhiKthal i.A ApD. No. Z9'i/20.t0 connectedAppeal.sofVillageBijwason I.A.App. r-Jo. a connocteclAppealsofVillaBO PocKaiioui' ' ' Page?,of29 % (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008 LA.APP.l 193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP.l 197/2008 LA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008; LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No,6957/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP,1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.li43/2008;LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009;

1.A. APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.224./2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009;

1..A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/20.09; LA.APP.494/2009; I.A.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; l.A.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009;, LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009: LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP .466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509,/200Q: LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP,45/2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008, LA.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 13 9/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM,No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA. AiPP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 (Relating to Notification No; F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the I.and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal,-Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.-BOW ASAN). • DLVENDER KUMAR ...-.Appellant Through; Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh 1A..A.pp. i\io 1195/.'-0C8 & connected Appeals of Village?Bharthal lA.App. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan lA.App No. 1.1.1/2010& connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur versus Advocates , i Mr.S.K.SoIankiarid Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) UOI & ANR .52/2010 . 56/2010 00/2010 . 242/2010 .282/20rO . 287/2010 295/2010 346/201.0 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/.2010 & LA.APP I-A.APP I.A.APP LA.APP i'.A.APP. i-A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lA.APP. LA.APP. r.A..'\PP. LA.APP. [.A.APP. I.A.APP. iLA.APP. iLA.APP. [-A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I .....Respondents Through: A4r.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.SoIankiand Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals filed by UOL Mr.VirendraSingh,Advocatein R-68,71 & 72 in appealfiled by UOI • Mr.BankeyBiharSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 • LA.APP. 246/2010' LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288,/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351,'2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP: 406/201,0 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP, 28672010 LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No.964/2011 (C LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP LA.APP.59/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP LA.APP.277/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP.284/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP, LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP.352/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP LA.APP.,362/2010 LA.APP. • LA.APP, 407/2010 LA,APP, LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. LA.AFP. 72.5/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP.731/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP.764/2010 LA.APP. •LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & i'0.ss-objections). . 51/2010 55,/2010 70/2010 22672010 281/2010 285/2010 ,294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722,/20l0 726,'2010

732./2010 828/2010 (delatinglo NotificationNo'. F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13 12 ^000 on ^ Act, 1894 & Award No, 2(V..002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) " . AND lAApp. Mo 1195/2008&connociHclAppealsofVillageBharlhnl • ' • ^ ' ' L\.A|ip.No, &caniifictodAppealsof ViliagGBijwasan App, iMo Ir,/:)Oia.iconnecU-dAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur ' ' '• % (GRID-C) Riserved_on:DecemhprJg 2011 ^^iQM:Ced^on:January0^ 2012 i-A.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPIJR) SEHAJRAMAND ORS. Through: versus UNION OF INDIA& ANR Through: ^ Appellants Mr.B.D,sh»M,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Rit of' forappellant(in M^RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant », e . Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar.SeniorAdvocatewith M. SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao MrBankeyBibariSharraa,Mr.Kunal for DDA Advocates j;a.app i^A.APP, la.app. i^A.APP. 1-A.APP. l^A.APP. la.app. IA APP. 1-A.APP. f-A.APP. la.app, la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011 . 154/2010 • 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 la.app la.app, la.app. la.app, la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app la.app, la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. 396/2010 . 432/2010 .489/2010-639/2010 • 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 ^,21/2011 ^^A.APP.485/201 la.app. la.app. 525/201 554/201. WApD. Mo, ''f VillageBharthal 'LA.APP. la.app. LA.APP. la.APP; LA.APP. f-A.APP, la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. •la.app. la.app. L.'V.APP. LAAPP. ^^'CAPP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 • 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201] 521/2011 526/2011-591/2011 La.app. la.app. la.app. la.app, la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. La.app. la.app, la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/.2011 522/2011 535/2011 Page 5 of 29• % ' (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated I.).12.2000issuedunderSection4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: ; HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR ORDER

06.01.2012

¶1Since the groundson which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, ^ thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NolificationNo.F.W(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocesstor planneddevelopmentof "DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notificationof 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricuitural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijv/asanand Pochanpur. Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award .No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@?13.82 lacs per acre for IMock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?I2.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquirtM l.A.App. No. n9;i/:'008&connoctedAppealsof VillageBharthal I.A.ApB. No. 2')'yl2QiQ&conr.fictedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App. Mo. 1n/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur " , , ' Page 6 of, 29 1\ agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct,. 1894 and the ReferenceCourt vide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation ^"15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquired land in Block 'A' ai|d @?13.36 lacs per acre for ^' i ' their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharfhal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave beendismissed.

¶5In these appeals,fiirtherenhancementof compensationsought by the appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate ofRupees bifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape ol decisions in Executive Engineer, KamatakaHousingBoard vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer, Qadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246;AnjaniMoluDessaivs. Stateof Goa andAnr.,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors ra. StateofHaryana andAnr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3See 66\-,RanvirSingh ami Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer,Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (sincedeceased)throughI^Rsvs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); IJdho Dass vs. State of 'Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SeAIJi 41; Chakas vs. Slate of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SeALE 362; Avinash DhavdjiNaik vs. State ofMaharashtra,(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SeC 568; W.P.(e) No, 4143/2003'titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03,2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. MJL RaflqSaheb, (2011) 7see 714; ihakarsihhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, ' AApp. Mo. ji9.')/?.0G8& connetledAppealsofVillage.Bliarthai ••A.App, Kio. 7.9'i/?.0,10&• GonnoctRdAppealsofVillageBijwasan AApp. Mo in/20.10K coan(:C«!dAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' •. PagG7of29 Gujara, and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Hai-y"na Stale Indmtrial DevelopmentCorpomtion,(2010) 11 SCC 175;RisalSingh <6 Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia&Anr., 2006 (89)DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; Gen^-alManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshhhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr.. AIR 2011 SC 2937; KiranTandonvs. AUahahad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia& Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority& Anr., decided on 24.04.2008;Om Prakash(dead)by LRsandOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004)10 SCC 627; Satpal <S Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Sam vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRamvs. UnionofIndia,2010

(170) DLT 371. <). On the strengtiiof the aforesaiddeci.sions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguingcounsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area overaperiodof time and tiie same cannotbe limitedto the near foturealone.

¶7it was pomted out by Mr.R.S/rojnar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewan-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two pans, I.e., on the easternside ofthe raiKvaylineis the iGl Aii-pott,New Delhi IA.Aop. iMo, ii;);;/2003&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal IA./'pp. Mo. ;!<M/20.10&connectnclAppealsof VillageBiiwasan ^AApp. i\)o i.ri/2010(i connectodAppealsof VillagePochynpu^ Page 8 of 7.9 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and aroad 100 motor.,wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarkaSub-City Part-I and Part-Il again divides the agriculturalland into two portions;(0 North Easternside, where IGI Airj^ortis located;and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFan,, Houses are located on the land of ViUagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Sola"kilearnedcounsel Ibr the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension 01 K>1 Ai^ort in U,e year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for o.stabt,shingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Potroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentofDwarkaPhase-Iand .ho lands on the westernsideofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City Attentionwas drawnto theafc.^,Wmapto highlightthatthe boundary

¶0Village Bhartltal. Village Pochanpurand Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maati,learnedcounselfor the appellants that tl,e Reference Court has tailed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of,its location and has •llcgally treated tl,e acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notrficationof 16"> October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agriculfurar to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the eritireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24"'October,1994. It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,'learned counselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidwo Notificationshave been ' wrongly discarded by the ReferenceCourt by relying upon P. IA.App. rj". l.-,y3,.',V008&connGctfidAppeal.,of VillapeBharlh.l Appeal,of ViilaB;Bijwasan f'f. .^0. .11 i/,_oi.O& connMcdAppeakofvillagePochanpur ; 17cc.T7' HMaa& On. 0995) by ihe Apex Coun in its later -.s.on,n mko Bass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010(9)SCALE '"* -«> 17"'"*""•" »•~ ov". .,,1n .« —» l» '-".i-» . n,, r.,." ,, acqi"s,t.on,iftheauthoritiesdo not put the landto. • mean thatthere is no buildingpotentiality. • ^0. Reliancewas placed bv MrR n QVio i ^PPenantsuponthe sevenSal'e^ 7' pT" ih-fho I • a. OfVilkgePochanpurto highlight thereinvariedfrotn ^52 lacs to ?62 , b),the Apex CourtmAnj""iMoluDessaivs. StateofCoa T'" '''''' averageel saleexemplarsouZL CS .epiesentingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 •PC. aae a"d smce the sale cxem,pla.-sreliedupon bv the appellants - .he comparahlesale instances, theret.re, rel.ance^lacedT^ :7n-s fordLim-:i -tet valueofthe acquiredland is patentlye.otteous Mr R bv pjrty^oIlTr" potentialityof rh,' • situationand »'«.v*.» :-'SS=:=;~S~;, • Page10 of29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO ratesofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on: the basis of the Pre-DeterrainedRates(PDRs)as referredto above,j J2. In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the iollowing grounds a) Ignores the aoknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the AM>ard No.26/2002-2003dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the P^'oceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) ' b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates,ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section5 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laid . down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe m.ore recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar.2010(3.)see 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunder.acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin IA.App, i\o, .119V2008&contU!cU;dAppealsof Villageliharthal LA.App. No. ,?94/2010&connaciedAppealsof VillageHIjwasan 1A.APP. No. ni/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur case the averagesaleprice is lower. 'Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SQC 710 the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging..of[differenttypes of sales transactions should he Considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupona certanland f) Relied upon Judgment dated 3.3.2008 in IAC of the subject landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethatthe marlcetvahieqfthelandis much higherthan 15 lacper o7T^^'^i "f «Blocks in violJion o the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court •m V-r I'll '"a ofHaryana 2010(1) " consequence, the impugned judgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No 1 .fram-edon 27.2.2007. g) l^aluatedthe land as agricidturalland although vide ISotificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi the land, use of VUlage Dhool Siras and Bharthal'^as hangedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesofDelhi State he masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use^ change show that in future land can be subjected to residential commercial and other perm.issibleuses. It is alsopertinentto mentionthat the f appellantleadevidenceinrespectofthe 74""amendment Oj the Constitutionof India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 I.X A, bv vutue of which the Municipal CorporationAct'was amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the mumcipalCounsellor . was electedfrom there. No Panchay.afelections were held in the area. Lou t ,467 RanvirSingh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia andrefusedto considerthefact that the developmentin tie area has adirecteffect on the price thata willing P^"chaserwouldpayfor thestibjectland.' 0 Ignored the fact tha.t Respondent No. ,2 had also 1-A.App No, U95;2008&connMedAppealsof ' IA aSp'io "I/mSI• Biiwasan •App. [^0. ,...,1/2010^ conneclndAppealsofViliagrtPochanp.r 1"^ auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and condluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedlar\d. ' I j) The valuationof the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. " k) Does not take into account the possibilityof change of the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarlca Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban ,boundaries of Delhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated J.6.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v, Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held,that thepurpose for which land is acquired is a. relevant factor. While determining value of the property acqidred the fact whether the land has got buildingpotentiality to be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in nearfuture needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings, on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in better useas housesites in the nearfuture. "

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details have been provided with a prayer that the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin these bunchof appeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvanced on behalf of the appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof l.A.App, Mo. il95/?.008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010 connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan IA.App. No. 311/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • pagel3of2P urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattciirayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapUMehra(MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Am, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DcterminedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area are relevantto determine the market value of the. acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reHectrngjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquiredlands is soughtin theseappeals. !5. Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence for determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connectedwith the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other factorsnamely,nature,situationofthe ptopeity,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered • and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market valueof the acquired lands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin JaiLai vH. Umon ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpai& Ors vs. Union of Mia. (1997) 11 sec 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Am.,

(2009) 15 see 7(59; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SushitKumarvj. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011.it was urged thatsharpincrease in price in ashortperiodcannotbe taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increaseare explainedby producingin evidence tire seller LA.App No, 11M/2Q08&connectedAppealsof VillageBhart^^ ' ' A.App. ^,o. 7.9/1/7,010&connectedAppealsofVillageBiiwasan IA.App No. II.1./2.0J.0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' • . ' and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpaysudahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instanceof Radha S.amiSatsing, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objectorthat adoptidn of L& DO rates/Pre-DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decisionof Apex Court in Lai CHana (supra) which has been followed by a (sup (supra)andRajSingh

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by M,.SanjayPodda.-, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objcctorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixin» the mmimum indicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Govemmentas on 1 .April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon@12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously elcrmmed by the Reference Court, as in Smhil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per ^nnum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor fiirtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned ,0 .ludgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RclcrenceCourtwhiletaldngintoconsiderationttieappreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while granting appreciation@,0% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissionsadvanced bv both the «.dcs and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon .ecordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe ti-uemarketvalue oi the comparablelandis the pricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling Pf-^o.,l,.,/;.CiO&conn«ct«dApp.ai,,01 VillagePoch.r,pur . PagG1,5of 7.9 m seller and the best evidence is the comparalplesale,instances. While dealingwith the questionof potentialvalue of thp acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. \state ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE41 in thesewords;- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or village which had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

(li) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; [Hi) possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up onthatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor huildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of huildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the ' acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶18Ihe potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large numberof factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for lA.App. No, connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal lA.App. No connecledAppealsofVillageBijwasgn l-A.App.No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur P 16 f29 wh'ich the lands were sought to be acquired;but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash(supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevant|factorsfor (determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has beejiheld by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsofsmall piecesof land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be aground to discardthem especially when exemplarsoflargepiecesofland were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special landAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedtipon on behalfof the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situatedhaving similar advantage available to them even as regards foture prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquiredland.

¶20It is a well establishedproposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value ofthe acquired land is on the State who has acquiied the agriculturalland lor a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden oi proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex CourtmKiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto withadvantage. . Apex Court in Valliyammai(Supra),^-hiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolii Dessai(Supra) deservealtention,whichare as under:- lA.App. i\o, J.IS5/200S&corincctedAppnalsofVillageBharthal l/\.App. No. 294/3010&connectedAppaalsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App.lMo.lU/;'.0r0&connpclGdAppealsofVillagoPochanpur " . "The legal position is that even where \there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bondfide transaction, Mali be considered. Where however there\ are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range iri a harrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or otherprice depressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to... " 22, II would be worthwhileto take note of the clinehingobsei'vations pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court iri. Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows ''It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactiorisproximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood oj the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed bet-ween reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil ami Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra),-are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation,of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices' would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts orjumps. ' ' lA.App. No. 3].9iV;'.008& connRctedAppfialsofVlllageBharthal i.A.App No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA,App. No, 1].1./2'01.Q&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page18 of29 I On the otherhand, in urbanorsemi-urbanareas, wherethe evelopmentIS faster, where the demfindfor land is high an were there is construction'activityall around, the escalation in marketprice is at a Auch higher rate as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities,'due o lapid development and high deinand for land, the escalationsin prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreperyear, duringthe nineties.On the otherextreme in remote rural areas where there was no chance of. any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated .foryearsor rose marginallyat anominalrateof1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increasesin market value oflands in the rural • areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat bestbe onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%perannum 1his rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. ^ Normally recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe market value by providingappropriateescalationover the proved market value ofnearbylands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transaGtionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussaletransactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelandsin the neighbourhoodThe said method^is reasonablysafe where the. relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition 0} onyafew years, that is uptofour tofive years Beyond unsafe. eve« if itrelates to a neighbouring land. What may be areliablesiqndardifthe gap is onlya .few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the.gap is larger For example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquiredin 1992.. adopting the ' annual increase method with reference to a sale or AApp. Nio. 11%/& connficledAppealsOfVillageBharthai A.Apo. No. ->,'>1/2010&cor.nfictedAppealsof VillageBiiwasan - Apu No. ,11/;oio&connpcredAppealsof VillagePochanp.ir V .V • Page .t9 of 29 acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls.This is because, over the course ofyears, thi 'rate' of annual 'nZlTTf '""Vundergodrasticchangeapartfrom the IMhoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin ofiZreale theverystandard

¶241his CourtIS mindfiilofthe dictumoftheApexCourtin Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSWC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods-.Whatwas saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or landswithdifferent « acquiredfor the samepurpose, fo, forming oj a residential layout, courts have •ometimes felt that determination of their-value with efeienceto previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoided ana auniformrate ofcompemationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe samenotification."

¶25^Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in que.stionare not availableand the solitaiysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at aprice which variedfrom?52 lacsto ?62 lacsperacre.

¶26Whetheraforesaidgale Deeds(Ex.PW-I/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)which arc basicallybetweenone set ofco-ownersand RadhaSwamiSatsang, Beas •" respectoftite compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand6 B.swassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe cotxecttnarke.valueof the land,n the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds AA"" ' uS;I """I" • Ip. Mo. 111/^030&connectedAppot,IsofVillagepocha.nput ' • * (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars—Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish"the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbetreatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village dde Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not Pochanpur ^ brought out been got examined by the appellants.Ilad the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sa elicited fron these lands. Satsang, Be, exorbitant' p March, 2000 7^ ,e exemplars been got examined, then it could have been , . him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami IS who had purchased'morethan 33 Bighas of land at an rice in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'' was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No; 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011'andin LA. /Vpp. No. 999/20

19.9.2011 ai Mamurpur v

¶27In the was changed that the acqu acquisition. 0 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on id in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village 'as discarded while holding that the same cannot be tj-eated as representj^tiveprice for the acquiredlands. instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence .red lands were being used foi-agriculturalpurposetill their lius, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing lA.App. No. 1.195/2008 & connec I.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connech l.A.App. No. lil/2010 & conncrtc :ed Appeals of VillageBharthal d Appeals of VillageBijwasan d AppealsofVillage Poclianpuf iTiarketprice of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special Qonsideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds (>:x.PW-i/4 Iix.PW-1/10) have ' been rightly discarded by the Rei^rence Court.

¶8So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.1-1per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it loted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was le National liighway - 8 and. because vide Sale Deed vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it-had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in needs to be i situated on t ,(Hx.PW-l/ll) queslion.

¶29Leflwi situated lands ^vhcther adop h no sale exemplars disclosing realistic ,price of similarly in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to ion of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to dc question.

¶30Parame highlighted b> "12. Ifcnvever, in either of the said cases whether it he the delennination of the market value of the acquired land,yvith buildingpotentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in. a well developed layout-in the neighborhood ;termine the true market value of the acquired lands in ers governing fixation of market value of acquired lands Apex Court in its decision reported as P, Ram Reddy and ! Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development •iuthority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC'305 are as under;- lA.App. No. :ll9:i/2008 & ironnnctod I.A.App. No. 2y4/;'010 & connccted i A.App. Nc, 1.1 l/i'.OlO & connected I. Appeals of Village Bharthal Appeals of Village Biiwa.san Appeals of Village Pochanpiir m orwhetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland, with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepric^fetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes ineyitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with reference,to theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliminarynotificationunder Section oj the Act Further, whereno evidenceofpricefetched by the scales ofthe plots in layouts ofbtiildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what could,be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publica. ion under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increase'its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method, of giving increased value for such buildingpotentiality arises only when, there is no evidenceof sales oj buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicatingthat there was no im.m.ediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even, ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view the DDA after of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by acquiringthe agriciijUira)lands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-Deter.TiinedRates in determining the market value of the' adjoining undc^veloped freehold lanas. Following"the dictum of Lai Chand (Supra), a coordinateBench of this Court''inJai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the .3 as being not relevantfor assessingthe market value of developed land i A.App. No. 1 & connccted , LA.App. No. 291/20,1.0 & connRCfcd A LA.App. IMo. .1.1.1/30.1.0& conrificlod A \ppeals of Village Dharliial 3pcals of VlllagG Rijwasan jpcals of ViilagG Pochanpur Pafje 23 of 29 a the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Refcrence Court has rightly n Dt adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or .the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the market value

¶32Now A method wou land in quest escalation at y;car 19<S4 1 Notification Notification . the l.and Acc •and therefoi unjustified. ofthe acquiredagriculturallandsinquestion. vhat is requiredto be seen is v\^hetherprogressiveincrease id be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the ion whiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senicr counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the ill the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the for development of Dwarka Phase-I, and the instant or developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by uisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice the enhancement granted by the Fveference Court is

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of •the Apex Co progressive i acquired lane be unsafe, e^ art in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt iicrease method in assessment of the market value of the •only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that ii. may ^en if it relates to a neighbouringland. What raay be a reliablestandird, if the gap is ol only o[ a few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the ;he two Notifications, i.e., of DWarka Phase-I and Dwarka sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe ;ermining the market value by providing appropriate gap between Phase-II is of mode of dc I.A.App. No. 119b/2008& connoctodAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 2.9t//.010& connncted'Appfia'sofVillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&conr,(;rle(iAppealsof VillagePochanpur # escalation oyer the marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previousyears.

¶34Mi.Sinjay Poddar, learned ' senior counsel for the respondent/:ross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has alation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a I Dench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After,having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher of the acquired land over arjd above the market value by the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt annum cannot be reducedto 10%) per annum. In this view of ic cross-objectionsof the respondentare dismissed. granted esc coordinate potentiality determined upon Sushi •@ 12% per the matter, t

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumpriceofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as .to v/hetherthe escalationof 12/'o per annum granted by the L^ferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the and by the Governmentw.e.f April, 2000 till the date of in the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor . agricultural Notification not.

¶36Adopt pertaining t( learned coun be an agricu ion of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land ) the Notification in question,vhas been assailed by the sel for appellantsbecause the ^icquired land had ceased to ctober, 1994 estion to be tural land by virtue of Notification of 24"' C declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in qi uj-ban. It IS tr.iethatvide aforesaidNolificationofthe year 1994the land use ol the accuiredland had changed6ut that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App. No. conned i.A No, .^91/ZOlO&.coniiGctn ed Appenlsof VillageBharthni d AppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App. (Mo. ]U,7.010&connectfidAppealsof VlllaBePochanpu I'age ZS of 29 t i.A.App J.A.Aprj, lA.App, V •presume tha considered as aspect of ther in question. Satsang, Beas of the said Ian

¶37Rather, issuance of K 1894, the acq increase in pri the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being developedlands. The evidence'led is lackingon the vital :being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands ^ot only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ds was for agriculturalpurpose. it emerges from the evidence on record that till the otificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, Liired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been :e due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityof the acquired land5 upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscou[d have laid theirhands on other sale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Poc of Village Sa establish that t lanpui to a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance nallcha (Jix.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to le qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha •SwamI Satsang, Beas mVillage Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamall<ha(Ex.PW-l/l1) are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired laiid with the sale ihstance of dia (Ex.'- PW-1/11) cannot'be-treated-to be' sufficient . highei compensationv,;h.ile relying upon the aforesaid Therefore, in view of the aibrc-referreddictum of the Haiyana State industrial DevelopmentCorpomtion

i), unrformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded Village Samal ground to gran sale instances. Apex Court in

(immc) (Supr, foi-the lands acquired under the same Notiljcationin the HgJit of the minimum priee tixed by the Govcniraentfor the agriculturarUmdin Delhi, which generallyfactors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there^is a gap between what No. 11^j3/^008&conimctodAppealsof VillageBharthal ' ' ' ' ' ,Mo. 2y4/?.010& connocredAppMl;:of Village BIjwasan • ' ' ' • No. 1.U/20.10& connHCtc-dApfeais of VillagePochanpiii • ' ' % would be c^^pectedto be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra)and I find take a different view than the one which had been taken by iench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra). •

¶38I'his Court is of the considered view that the .Reference Court in no reason to coordinate I the matters rightly reliec pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. landing of th Bijwasan, of of the acquir e Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthailand Village there being no evidence that the potential and'the situation 2d lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectof higherpotentialityof the Ejcquiredlane Bharat Peiro Bharthal anc from Shiv M Is being in close vicinity of the IGT Airport, Indian Oil and eum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 urti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of tfe acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaidlockionaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinity of Dv/arkaPhase-I. What persuac value of the es this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market acquired lands' as assessed bv the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the [/i App. No. 119Li/20()8Si connGcled Appeals of VillaRe Bharthal l/\.App.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsof Village Bijv^/asan IA.App. Mo; 11.1/7.010& co-nnectcidAppeal,',of Village Pochanpur Page ?:'/ of 29 S' settled lega position apliy iiighiigiitedby tlie Apext Court in Mirza NaushemanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1SCC 238, in thesewords:- "Whe. possib hiiildii would bvdidi} value , 1 once a conclusion is' reached that there was the ility ofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up igs in the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion be sifficientto hold that the acqiaredland had a ig potentialityand proceedto determine its \narket 'akmg into accountthe increasein price.attributable •» A* 1•»* 7 w ___v II ~ ^ Lit-to such buildingpotentiality.",

¶39Consicering the fact that ii would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact;that exactnesscan never be acl|ieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe imtantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem equivalc.nceby unifoimly applying the Government'sminimum prices lor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of ands as there are no special featuresto treat the acquired tly and so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at r counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and san. riowever.while relying upon the decision in Sialii/ Kmwr (Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands dctemiinedby the RelerenccCourt in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotenlialityin the acquiredlands in question. the acquired lands differen par with thei Village Bijwa %

¶40yVccordi awarding ]0% Reference Coi Bijwasan. Whi the appellants i I'^.App No. iira/^OOa & cormoclPd, IA.App. No. ?.9'l/;?010& conncctc'dA lA.App. No. .l.:!.l/201C& connGclKdA igly, these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the rt HI matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village etreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with )f VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof \ppeals of Village Bharthal jpeals of Village Bijwa.san • jpcalsofVillage Pochanpur the appeilan indicated abc three villages Category 'A lands in ques :s of Village Pochanpur are also allowed tb the extent I 've. Ihus, the market value of the acquiredlands ofthese in questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^bShrforthe land and @^14,69,600/-per bipha for the Category 'B' — •ion.

¶41On the: aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siaiiitory ben the judgmeni granted, exce ibr uiiich per. be paid. Thes( compensation General of this be accord ini2,l\ J,anuary 06, 2 pkb jfits as per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are 3t for the periodwherethere is adelay in filing the appeal, od ofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall appellantswouldbe entitledto-proportionatecosts, captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the amount,ifany, depositedby eitherside.withthe Registrar Court, to the concernedReference,Court. Decree sheets prepared. '• (SUNIL GAUR) , r... ."I I::; - v,-, /s I.A.App.No.1195/2008 & connnclcd IA.App. No. 294/2010 & conncictnd IA.App. No. 111/2010 & connpclod Appeals ofVillage Bharthal Appeals of VillageBijwasan Appealsof VillagePochanpur k I THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195 /2008 RANBIR SIIARMA Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate • Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B:l<:.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and M-.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mx.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF r Throug COl^M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR c.jw. Appi. This is Order of 6''^ J Counsel :NDIA & ANR. , Respondents r. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with , • Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mi'.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, • Mi-.BanlceyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DBA. ORDER

12.01.2012 o, 752/2012 (For correction). an application for seeking,typographical correction in anuai7, 2012. appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/200 3 Page 1 I % oftlie application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento re:nainingcounselfor the appeJlants. typogiaphicaJerror pointed out by the respondentin the" 6 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the idgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph l|A-App.No.1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'.!Necessary 3ecarried out forthAvith. The decision o aforesaid ji whereas it 'no; 40 of corrections In view ofthe aforesaid,this apphcationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY pkb

1.2, 2012 GA 'G.E I.A4pp.No.1195/2008 Page 2

% + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 485/2011 Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 KAPTAN SINGH DECD THR LRS & ORS Appellant Through: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61,64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR