Ajay Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Unkn of India & Anr.'. 'JUNIL

JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI H (GRID-A) LA.A1P. 1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR. SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.ArnitMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, M.r.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. MrRaghuvinder Godara, Advocate W Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, PvIr.1Iee)ak Khosla.. Mr,Sarnit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates • Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate: Mr.i.S.Dahiya, Advocate • Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advoatp. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.11..Raute1a, (Advocates fr respondent in appeals fil,edby UOi.) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjav Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohjtrao .iadhav and Ms.Navljn Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudj Kiran, Advocates for LACi'UOJ Mr.Ajav Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kuinar, Mr .S.K.Sethj, iVlir.Pawan I\4athur, Mr.Kunai. Sharma. Advocate for DDi LA.APII.412/2oo3 & CM.No.4096/2008 1 .,A.APJi.453/2008 . 1,A:Ap1).688/2008 & LA. APP.697/2008 & CM.No.433/2009 CM .No.b 10/2009 (Cross-Objections); .A.App. No. 1i5/2008& connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

4.App. No. 29 2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No. 1.L1.72W0 & connectsd Appeals of Village Pochanpur (CrssObjectjons); LA.APP .452/2008; CM.No.5990/20 10 (Cross-Objections): ((,'ross-Objectjons); LA.APP.70 I /200 & LA.APP,768/2008; LAAf'ft77Q!?OO Page 1 01 29 . I H LA.APPL77I/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008;

1.A.APP[773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.1kPP.774/2008 & CM.No.1 1/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.775/2008 LA.APR776/2008• LA.APP1777/2008 1,A.App.782/208 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP]783/2008 LA.APP.784/2008 LA.APP.785/2008 LA.APp.798/2008 & CMNo.1 5/2009 (Cross-Qhjections) LA.APp79/2008 & CM.No.93 1/2009 ( Cross-dbjections); LA.APP. 805/2008 ; LA.APp.806/2008 ; LA.APP. 8 1 3/2008 & CM.No. I 795/2009 (CrossQbjections); LA.APP8 1 4/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.8 I 8/2008; LA.APP.8 1 9/2008; 1,A.APP.820/2008; 1,A.APP.829/2008 1,A.APP.830/2008 LA.APP;832/2008 LA.APP.833/2008 1,A.APP.844/2008 LA.APP.845/2008 LA.Apf.8'73/2008 & CMNo.779/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.App.892/2008 & CM.N.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; . LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.95 1/2008 & CM.No.7O9/2QO9 (Cross-Objections); LA.Ap.959/2008• LA.App.973/2008• LA.APP.974/2008 &. CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cros-Objections)• LA.APP. 975/2008; LA.APP.76/2008• LA.APP.978/2008• LA;APp.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 APP. I 29"2008& CM.No. 1 7340/200g (Cross-Qjections) LA.APP. 1031/2008 & CM.No, 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (CrossObjectjons). LA.APP. 1046/2008; LA.APP. I 047/2008;LA APP 1048/2008& CMNo,785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections). 1A.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 1052/2008; LA APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.4 16/2009 (Cross-Objectjofls);LA APP 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1 66/2009 (Cross-Objections). LA.APp. 1055/2008;LA APP 1057/2008 & CM.No752,'201 I (cross-Objections); LA.App.1 058/2008& CM.No. 1557/201 (Cros-Ojections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.o..i 72S9/2OO8(Cross-Objectjois); LA.APP. i060/20o8;LA.App 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objectjo1). LA.APP, 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objectio) 1,A.APP.11075/2008. LA.APp.1081,'2008 & CM.NO.462/2009(CfOSSObjCCtjcJ)S); i.A.APP. 1 084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (CrossObjectioig); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.N.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1O87/2O08& CM.No.61 9/2009 (Cross-Objectiojs); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.APPJ1 094/2008:LA.APP. 1095/2008 LA.APp.1 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (CrossQbjetjons). pp 1 108/2008 & CM.NO.3839/2009 (cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1:109/2008; LA.APP. 1110/2008 & CN4.NO,3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App.11 11/2008; LA,App1 112/2008 8B & CM.No.31/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App.i:1 1/2008 & CM.No.3826/7o9 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1115/2008; LAAPPJ1 1i6/2008; LA.APP. 1121/2008; LA.APP.1 126/2008; LA.APP1 129/2008 &. CMJJo550,12009 (Cros.Objectjoiic; LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 & CM.No566/2009 (Cross.Objectio(ls); LA.APp. 1 133/2008• LA.APp. 1135/2008 & CM.Np.7442,'2009 (Cross-Objectiojis); LA.App.j 137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Obectois); LA.App.1 140/2008; LAApp.1 i56/2OO8; LA.APp.i 157/2008; LA. .APP.1 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 ((ross-Objctions); LA.App. 1159/2008; LA.APP. ii '1/2008; LA.APP. 1166/2008; LA.1pp.i F67/2008 & CM.No.802/2009.(CrossObjctjofls); LA.APP.1 168/2008; LA.App. 1 1i70/2008; LA.APF.]i 7.1/2008; LA LA.APF. i172/2O08 LA.APP. 1173/2008; .APP 1 i5/2008; LA.APP.1 178/2008; LA.APP. 1179/2008; LA.APP.1 18 1/2008; .LA.APp 11 p2/2008; LA.APP 11 83/2008& CM.No.6933,/2009 (Cross-Ohject;ois). [..A.APP.1 .1 4/2Oo& LA.APP.1 185/2008; LA.APP.1 186/2008& CM.No.701 3/2009 A./p1, No. 1 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

.A.Ap. No. 294/20 10 & corThected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. Nc. .1 1.112013 .& connected Appeals of Village Pochaiipur Page 2 of 29. (Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1190/2008; LA.APP.1 191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008; LA.APPJI 193/2008; LA.App.I 194/2008; LA.APP.t 195/2008; LA.App.1 197/2008; LA.APPfl 1 98/2008& CM.No.6935/2OO9(crossEbjectjofls); LA.APP. 1200/2008; .LA.APPJI 202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.1 210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008; LA.APPJ1212/2008; LA.APP. 12 13/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM;No.6957/2009(cross Objections)• LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 124 1/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008; LA.APP 1275/2008; LA,App. 1276/2008; LA.APP, 1277/2OO8; LA.APP. 1279/2008; LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.App. 1284/2008; L.A.APP. 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.AP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA. APp.2/2oo9 & CM.No. 746/2011 (Cros-Obj ections); LA.APP. 59/2009; LA.APp.73/2009 & CM.No.7 103/2009 (Cros-Objectjons); LA.APP. 74/2009; LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No, 953/2011 (Cross-Objections) ; LA.APpj 08/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 13 5/2009; LA.APP. 36/20O9; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009; LA.App 1:40/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009 LA.APIP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; LA.APP. 162/2OO9 LA.APP 187/2009; LA..APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA.App, U97/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.App.20 1/2009; • LA.APP2:02/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APp:08'2009 & (Cross-Ojectiois); LA.App.210/2009 & CMN600/201 I (Cross-Objections);, LA.App.21 1/2009; LA.APP 220/2009; LA.AP 222/2009 LA.APP 223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009. LA.APP.227/2009; LA.App.231'2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objectiois); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009;

1.A.App 249/2009 LA.APR257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.App447/2009; LA.APP 458 /2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APp.40/2009; LA.App.48 1/2009; LA.App.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APp.41/20O9; LA.APP.493/2009. LA.APP 494/2009• LA.APP 495/2009; LA.APP.503/7009; LA.APP.506/2009; LA.App.507/2009; LA.APp508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.5 10/2009; LA.App. 1/2009; LA.App.5 12/2009; LA.AP.53/20O9. LA.App.567/2009. LA.ApP.572/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.App.45/2o 10; LA.App,48/201 0; LA.App.404/201 0; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP 11 3/2008; LA.App. 1176/2008; • LA.APP 1 177/2008 LA.Appj 201/2008; LA.App.23 I 2009 ' (Relating i 10 Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/iA/134I7 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002 Viliae Bharthai, l)elhj) (GRID-B) H. L'ednDecenibe,.)// LA APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE... BIJWASAN) I) EVFNDFJR KUMAR. Through: lJ\.App No. :1:1.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthaf A.App. No. 294/2010 & ccnnect&j Appeals of Village 8ijwasai L./.Ap1. No. J .10010 & connectcd Appeals of Village Pochanpur Appellant Mr.R. S. Tomar, Mr. Virendra S ingh / ta~~ Advocates Mr.S.K.Solânki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. I'outray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 4 1-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanj ay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOi/LAC Mr.S.K.Solânki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routiay, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 &. 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma,, Mr.Kunal Sharma and 1\4r.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LAJPP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP.52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP.56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP.242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.PPP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP.282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.PP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APPJ287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 2941/2010 LA.APPi295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP, 345/2010 L.A.APP.1346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 .LA.API. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APPJ350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.P1, 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APPJ354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.PF . 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP.365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APE'. 760/2010 LAAPP. 359/2010 LA.APPJ36O/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.AP1'. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 .

L.A.APP.405/20i0 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.4PP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP.409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LAAPFL 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP.723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.AP]. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APPi727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP.750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP.94/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP.77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP.75/20.10 & C.M.No;964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Re1atinto Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued uider Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/20022003'Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND I AApp. No. 1195/2008 8 connected Appeals of Village Bharthal .A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Dijwasan 'App. No. 111/2010 & :wh1 ected Appeals of Village Pochanour Pege 4 of 29 1~ (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18 2011 /PIoioincec1 on: January Oj01 LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPU SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.B.D. Shrma, M.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16,.20, 23to;] 1) 26, 29,30,33,36 to 40,44 to 49, 59, 63 to' Mr.S.B. Kuthar, Advocate 'for appellant in LA.App.No. 61; 64, 65/2011) Mr..Rajesh Yadav. Advocate for appellant inR-22) versus UNION OF INDIA ANR . Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohjtrao Jadhav, and Ms. avljn Swain, Advbcates for UOI/LAC. Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kurial Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.App. 1 1i/2010 LA.APP. 10/2O1O I.A.APp. 228/2010 LA.APP. 2514//20 10 LA.APp. 29/2010 LA.App. 307/201() LA.App. 39/2010 LA.App, 420/2010 LA.f\pp, 46/2010 LA.APp. 637/2010 LA.A.PP. 666/2010 LA.APp. 767/2010 LA..APp. 919/2010 LA.APp. 65/2011 LA.APP. 120/2011 LA.APp,'011 LA.APp. 523/201 i LA.APP. 536/2011 LA.APp. 154/2010 LA.APp. 165/2010 LA.APp. 248/2010 LA.APp. 260/2010 LA.App. 293/2010 LA.App, 317/2010 LA.APp. 396/2010 LA.App. 432/2010 LA.APp. 489/2010 LA.APp. 639/2010 LA.APp. 662/2010 LA.App. 768/2010 LA.App. 1052/2010 LA.App. 116/2011 LA.App. 121/201 1 LA.APp. 485/2011 LA.APp. 525/2011 LA.APp. 554/2011 LA.App. 155/2010 LA.APp.209/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 LA.App; 26 1/2010 LA..APp;305/201 0 LA.App. 3 92/2 010 LA.APP. 397/2010 LA.APP :433/2010 LA.AP.P..577/2010 LA.APP, 540/2010 LA.APp. 741/2010 LA.APp. 784/2010 L.A.APP. 6112011 LA.App 117/2011 LA.App. 29/201 I LA.App. 21/2011 LA..App, 326/2011 LA.APP 591/2011 LA.APp. 156/2010 LA.App. 215/2010 LA.APp.25O/7()lO LA.APp. 270/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 I.,A,APP 393/2010 LA.APP. 412/2010 L.A.APP. 434/2010 LA.APp. 635/2010 LA.App, 657/20 10 LA.APP. 758/2010 LA.APp. 9(L8/2010 LA.App. 64/201 I LA.APp. 119/20] LA.APp. 429/2011 LA.App. 522/2011 LA.APp. 535/2011 No, .1195/2008 & corn(cted Appeals of Village Bharthal LAApp, ;o. 294/2010 &COnnocted Appeals of '/illage Bijwasan l.A.App, No. 111/2010 & connect€'d Appea:, of Village Pochanpur (Re1ating to Notification No. F.1 0(30)96L& B/LA! 13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award N. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002,Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BIJE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

06.01.2012 Since the grounds on which enhanceient of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsl for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to iVotifIcation No.F. ]O(3096-L& B/LA/134] 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. Acquisition process for planned development of 'Dwarka Phase-11' in Dethi, commenced with the issuance; of Notification of 131h December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land. Acquisition itct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bhartljal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur. Agricultural land of the appellants heein in the aforesaid three villages stod acquired by the Respondents ide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award NoJ28/2002-2003;and Award No.30!2002..2003 granting compensation @ 13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field . with top soil) and @ 712.32 lacs per acre for 13 lock '13' (without top soil). Disstjfid with the assessment of market value of their acquired LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.App No. 294/2.010 & connEcted Appeals of \'illage Bijwasan l.A.App. Nc. 11/2010 & connkted Appeals of Village Pochanpur . • S H agriculti4ral lands, appellants had sought rfe:ence under Section 18 of the Lan( Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Re'e]Tence Court vide imp Ligned judgnaeit had enhanced compensation @ 15.00 lacs per acre for the appellans' acquired land in Block 'A' and OD Z13.36 lacs per acre for their Blbck 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencs relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bij\Tasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty •lac per acre, whereas appellants of Vllage Pochanpur have sought compenation at the rate of Rupees Thirty as per acre by relying upon the preéedents in the shape of decisios in Executive Engineer,. Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acqiisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246; Anjani Molu Dessaivs. State of Goa and Anr.,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh Rain and Ors vs1 State of Ilaryana and Anr.,'

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Dea, through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010),3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaigaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) thrOugh LRs vs. Union of India & A!zr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. .tate of Haiyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362 ; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. Sthte of Maharash/ra, (200) 1 1 SCC 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Harvana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; .W.P.((..") No. 4143112003 titled as Smt. Indu .Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Or's, decided on 26.03.20 10; Special LandAcquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and vs. Executive Engineer, I AAp No, :1195/2008 & onnected Appeals of Village Bharthal lA.App. Nc. 294/2010 & crnected Appeals of Village Bijwasan [A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocharpur . . .. Gt#arat and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Haryana State Ifldustrial Development corporation, (2010)11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors, Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 ,DB); La! Ghand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Alaturall Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai .Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 scc, 745; Vaiii:yammal aidAnr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 :SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Ailahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 scc 745; Mahesh .Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharishtra, AIR 2009 sc 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of india & Anr, • 1,76(20F1) DLT 361; W.P.(c) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Sing/i vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr,, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union f India, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) ii scc 423; LA A.P.P. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kurnar vs. Union of India, decided on I

26.09.2011; 'LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Rum vs. Union of India, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhule Rum vs. Union of india, 2010. (1 70) DLT 371. On. the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urgd by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned arguing.counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural. land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must he adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone. It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tornai, counsel for appellants that I)elhi-Rewari-Jodhpur. broad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthl, dividing it into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line i Is the IGI Airport, New Delhi LA/pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected AppeaR of Village Bharthal t.App. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2019 & cOnnected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . ., • and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharát Petroleum and a road 100 meters vide starting from NI-I-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-Il again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where RH Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Fari'n Houses are located on the land of\7illages BharthaJ, Bijwasan and Sainalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankj learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extensioii of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and gain in the year 1980 fo-establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereaflr in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal alid Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for develojrne,nt of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western, side of Villages Bamno1i and Dhool Siras were' also acuired for the development of haseJI Dwarka Sub-City.' Attention was drawn to the a/cs .sizras/map to bighlight that the boundary of Villae Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are cont1guous. It as strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Man, learned counsel for the: appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has li S illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 1 6th October, 2000 vide \yhich land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industria1, etc,. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceasd to be rural in view of the Notifiction 0f24th October, '1994. It was argued with much vehemene y Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants 'that the aforesaid two 'Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama .1 4.Ap. No, 1195/2008 & Cp000Cted'Appeak of Village Bharthal A.App. No. 294/2010 & comiected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L'.App, No. i.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

O Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) • 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquircl land must be adjudged keeping ii view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,if the authorities do not put the lund to any use, it wbuld not mean that there is no bri1ding potentiality.

¶10Re1ince was placed by Mr.B.D.Shartha, learned counsel for the I appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Vill Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied froin52 lacs to Z62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by th Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these salel, exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid clown by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average ofsaie exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the' land which comes to Z57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the 'appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefor, reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circlle iates for determining the market value of the acquired landis patently erroneous.

¶11Assesment of tharket value of the ac4uired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& 1)0 rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in theyear 2000-2001. Keeping in view the location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market yalue is I.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & Connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.App. No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Puge 100129 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the bai of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or I on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to abo\e.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant - Iiulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed th6 impugned judgment on the following grounds:- a,) "Ignores the acknowledgement I on the part of the respondent about the Award N. 2 6/2002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition I N0.19012 of 2006 (Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated

7.7.200 I ?oes not account for the fact tat the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely afectth the rates (?f land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. Valuing the land on the bais 1 qT the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the Governmeht of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions includiig in one of the more 1ecent decisions of the Hon'bie uprenie Court in . Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(5) SCC 661. Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per established law has to be considerd before ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition, I2oes not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds roduced before the trial Court whreas as per the law etablished by the Bn 'ble Supreme court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land Acquisition Qf/lcer, Civil Apeal No. 5475 of 2007. The Hon 'bie Supreme court has spec?fIcally held that Sale Deed showing higher rate should nt be disregarded in Ii\.App. No. 1.195/2008 & coflnected Appeals of Village l3harthal t\.Aop. No. 294/2010 & connected Appals of Village Bijwasar, J.App. No.111/2013 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur • case the average sale price is lqwr. Further in An/ana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f,) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much: higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and 713, 36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment refused to return an actual findin, on the issue No.] • framed on 27.2.2007. g Evaluated the land as agricultural, land although vide 'Notflcation of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village DhoQi Siras and Bharthal was • changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and • caine now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and IVotfications'. of Government for land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinnt to mention that the appellant lead evidence in respect of the 74th amendment qf the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the kind is situated, was • deemed a municipal area and thenunjcia.l Counsellor was elected from there. No Panëhiyat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid dwn in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Air vs. Union of india and refused to consider the fact t/at'the development in the area has a direct effect on th )rice that a willing purchaser would pay for the sub/ec't land. • m) Ignored the fact that Respondnt No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195f2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA.App. No. 1.11/2010 & cohnected Appeals of Village Pochanpur \, auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocicv at the rale of about T2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. j The valuation of the subject land Is ven lower than the pre-deterinined auction rates set 7j) Respondent No. 2 Jr similarly situated land. k) boes not take into account the po ssibility of change of the use of the land although the lind was acquired for developnent purposes of Dwarka Phase II. it is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and ITharthal was changed and these aTeas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. • 1) Ignored Notifications dated 16. 10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsiiclar

(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose/or i'ihich land is acquired is a relevant .factor. While determining value of the propertj iáquired the fact hether the land has got building potential ity to be used for building purposes in immediat hr in near fut,ure nèds to be considered in) The presence of a nunber of buifrlings on the lands aquired and the said land beingccupied by the bildings are to be treated as houe.sites The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential qarters. As a portion of the land iseing considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of be ng put in better use as house sites n he near future" In the brief synopsis by V.d P1 ULIJers 01 LA. App. No. 347/2009 the factual details have been provided with a prayer that tii appellants of this appeal be treated at par wit the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. Supplmentjng the aforesaid arguments a\;anced on behalf of the appellants itwas urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, A.dvocte that the effect of LA.App. No, 1195/2008 & Connected Appeals of Village Rharthal l.A.App, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A App. No. I 1i/201o& Connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur / • H uibanization of the lands in the Villages in question, 1 e, the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Pattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapi( Mehra (Major Genera) & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr, 1 76(201 1) DLT 361 and that Pre-I)etermjned Rates, Reserved Auction Rate of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquird lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are cOmparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to :assess the correct market • value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is • sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objectiops filed by theRespondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senioi Counsel urged that thbugh as per Section 51A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified coy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be tken as relevant evidence for determination of the market value unless and until the same is roperly connected with the land in questjr and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Resondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai Lal vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Saipal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) ii SCC 423; Ltd Ghand vs. Unio,'j of India and Anr,,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! J(urnar vs. Union of Iidia, decided on 26.09.2011, it was ged that sharp increase in price in a shdrt period cannot be taken to b 6 ra1istic until reasons for such sharp increase are e.xplained by producng in evidence the seller LA./pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & conneàted Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 11 1/2010& connected Appeals of Village Pochanptir S and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsan, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. 'Thus, it was contended on behalf Of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! Chand (supra) whidh has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kmar (supra) and Raj Sing/i (supra).

¶16So, far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by. Mr.Sanjy Poddar, learned senior counsel fOr the RespQ.ndents/cross-objeCtors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1st April, 2000 and by granting appreiation thereon @ 12% per , annum, market value of the acquired lnds has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciaiori @ 10% per aimum has been graited. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancemeit from the price of acquired • lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified cleletiiig:the enhancement by the Reference Court while taking into consideraiOn the appreciation @ 1 2% per annuñ-i and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-ohj ections to the aforesaid extent.

1.7. After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon. close perusal of the impugne,d judgment, the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the coñ-iparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to a willing LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal LA.Aop. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur .

H seller and the best evidence is the comarable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential valueeof the acquired land, wht has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dàs i's. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- i2 . the situation of the acquired lcnd vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its comme/Acial, i1dusfrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or beaue of its explosive population;

(ii) the suitability of the acquired arid for putting up the buildings, be they resident ic.l, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; NO possibility of obtaining watei and electric supply for occupants of buildings to bepui up on that land; absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building puipose, existence, of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed reidential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;

(vi), benefits or advantages of echcatjonai institutions, health care centres, or the lilth in the surrounding areas of the acquired land lwhich may become available to the occupiers of bu'ldings, if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself b.eng in demand for biilding purposes, to specify afew." .1.8. The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purpoes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to hear in mind the purpose for A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal L.A.App. No. 294/2010 & A connctpd nnI f\tiJi. ... ._ - LA.App No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur '' Li II S• H which 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 Ai'inash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Alma Sing/i (supra) that the exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially \Vhen'exernplars of large pieces of land were nctavailable. 1 9. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. .Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges frbra the decisions relied upon /5 on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly , situated havIng similar advantag available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the cOrripensation on the ground of di.stance between similarly situated lands and the acquifed land. It is 'a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquird. land. is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a prti.cular purpose. But, it is equally tiue that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For.. this propsition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be re'erred to with advantage. Apçx Court in :. Valliyammal (Supra), }vhile 'taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational . institutions, hospitals, had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observatioiis made by the Apex Court in Anjàni Molu Dessui (Supra) deserve atention, which are as under:- .A./pp No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village 8harthal A.App, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App NO 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . Page 170129 S "The legal position is that even wiie:'e there are several exemplars with reference to similr lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is allbona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can he I takenJ cis representing the market price. But where the values iis closed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with referenc to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or , other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to." It would be worthwhileto take note of'the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Pail (Supra), vhich are as follows:- "ft is well settled that genuine 1 and bona Jlde sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the po.int of' acquisition of the lajd situated in the neighborhood of 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 between reasoiahle prudent persons acting in the normal market conditiohs are the real basis to determine the market value." Principles to determine the market vh.ie of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Nturai Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGc, .(Supra), are as '4nder:- "rimarily, the increase in land piices depends on .jàur ftors - situation of the land, nature of development in suirounding area, availability of lai'd for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In ruril areas unless there is any prospect fcievelopment in the vicinity increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts o1'jumps. IA.App. No. I I 9S/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthai 1A.App. No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasen LA.i'pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur S .. H On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction ath'ity all around, the escalation in market price is at a I much higher rate, as • compared to rural areas. in some pqckets in big cities, due to, rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in

remote rural areas where there was no chance qf any development and hardly any, buyer 4 the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nonzinal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a sigiificant difference in increases in market value of land th urban/semi-urban aras and increases in market value cf lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in • urban/semi-urban areas is about 10.to 15% per annum, the correspoi'ding increases in rural areas would at best be • only aroundhalf of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absenc,e of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prcs. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applid wOuld depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate ecalation over the prQved market value of nearby lands in previous years ('as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneossale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neihbourhood. The said method is reasonably safr where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition byonly a ew years, that is upto four to, me years. Beyond that it. may be unsafe, even if it relates t a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become , unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For examplC, for determining the market, value, of a land acquired in :1992, adopting the annual increase method with .reference to a sale or .f\.Aep. No. J 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan i.A.App. No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur S . v7 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may hav many pitfalls. This is beause, over the course of years, the rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic c1hnge apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase."

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Gorporation kHSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the adquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods.. What was said bS' the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When different categories of lands ('Or lands with dlfferent situational advantages) are acquired for the same purpose, say far forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation:should be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notification." Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired. lnd of Village Bharthal, Village Bwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitaiy sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale I)eeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Villge Pocl-ianpur at a price which varied from 52' lacs to Z62 lacs per acie. Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PWflI/4 t Ex.PW-i/] 0) which are basically between qne set of co-owners ad .Rdha Swami Sathang, Beas in respect of the compact block of land 1easiring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas sitia.ied in Village Pochanpur reflect the corect maket value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required to be ansered. Evidently, aforesaid sale eernp)ars, i.e., Sale Deeds L4.App. No 1195/2008 & conriecteçj Appeals of Village Bharthal lI\.App, No. 29/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/7010 & connected Appeals of Vilfage Pochanpur (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its'price varies from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale • exemplars -- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PWl/lO) did not command the same market price It was dependent upon the nature and situation of 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 exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acqired lands in question. The siccial ieed of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Fx.PW-l/10) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had he purchaser/vendeé of the aforesaid sale exemlars been got examind, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed io pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy . of the purclaser, i.e., Radha Swami Saisang, Beas' who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide. Sale Deed executed on 25 March, 20.00 was also subject matter in LA. App. N. 266/2008 titled as Jai Sing/i vs. Union of India, decided on .8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Sing/i vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, th• sale exemplar of Village Wamurpur was discarded while holding that same cannot be treated as representati\fe price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant lñatters, though the land use bf the acquired lands was changd much prior to their acquisition, butit has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agriultural purpose till their acquisition: Thu, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing Lf..App. No. .195I2008 & connected Appeals of VHlage Bharthal il.App. No. 294/2010 & Conndctd Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No. 111.0010 & conr,cted Appeals of Village Pochanpur O H H . market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant .for specia1 consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale iexemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rjghtly discarded by the Reference Court. So far as the sale exemplar of Villge Samallda (Ex.PW-l/l 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, diselosing exorbitant price of l,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Ded of 27th January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale xemplar (Ex.PW-1/l 1) was situated on the National Highway - 8 ard: because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-l/l 1) vendor had sold not only the lnd but the structure thereon including: tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view I thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question. Lefi with no sale exemplars disclosing tealistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is reqired to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates i6r the developed lands and Pre-I)eterrnined Rates for the alternate plots y the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market vali4e of the acquired lands in question. Parameters governing fixation of rnark€t value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision retorted as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acq4isition Officer Hyderahad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. ifowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination qf the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by salk ofplots in a well developed layout in tT.è ñghborhood IAApp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur o orwhether it be the determination of th market value 0/the acquired land with building potenticliiy with reference to the price fetched by sale of building pots in an undeveloped lajout of building plots in the neigh br hood, it becomes inevitable for the couit to find out what will be the pric fetched or to be fetched by the sales fplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with refernce to the price which the plots could have fetched ?foid on the date of the publication of the preliminary notflcation under Section 41 of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched bythe sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neihborhood of the acquired land becomes available then what could be done is to find out he market value of the: acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 40 of the LA Aci according to the •ctual use to which it was put and increase its value by • a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on thç Lzsis of evidence to • he thade available in that regard. A: small percentage • incrase to be given shall not exceed 11-15th of the market value of the land found out accordiig. to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only vhen there is no evidence of sales of building plots in he neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immedizte demand, as such, for building plots ee if formed in the acqired land."

¶31In view of the difficulties in adoption bf• rate of land charged by the I)DA after acquiring the agricultural lands deelopjng the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lal (]hand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable t l o rely upon the allotment rates/PreDeterfl-lifled Rates in determining t 1 hè. market value of the adjoining ndevelope freehold lands. Folldwng the dictum of La! Chand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Sing/i (Supra) and .Sushui. Kuinar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assesng'the market value of A.App. No. 1195/2008 & Connccted Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No, 294/2010 & connocted Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.Ap No. 1U/20j0 & Connected Pppeals of Village Pochanpur a the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates forlltrnent of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates f6t alternate allotments foi fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assesg the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and.othei-villages for development of Dwarka; Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddat, learned senior counsel for the respondent/dross-objector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 10% p;r annum is t.ken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instat Notification for development of Dwarka Plias-II, still the price fixed b' the Land Acquisition Collector is more thaii the aforesaid escalated pride and therefore, the enhancement granted I by the Reference Court is unjustified. . I

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! (hand (Supra), caiitining the Courts to adot progressive increase method in a3,')U6b111V,11L d the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5ears and beyoiid that it may

he unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, ifhe gap is of pnly of a fe¼r' ers, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is lager. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-Il is of sixteen years and therefore,it vould be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the, market value by providing appropriae LA.App. No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur H. escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous yeais

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had' urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After haying . perused the decision in Sushil Kurnar (Supra), I find that 10% inciease on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has ben granted and so, by relying upon Sushi! Kurnar (Supra) escalation grnted by the Reference Court 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respond.ent are dismissed. Now what is to be seen is whethr tdoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Ieihi,by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the tharket value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12 0/c: per annum granted by the Referenée Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the, agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. 1st April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals desevs to be further increased or Adoption of Government's minimuii' rat,es of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agriculturaI land by virtue of Notifiatjoij Of 24th October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three vi1lges in question to be urban. It is true that ,vide aforesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed but that y itself is not sufficient to LA.App. No. 1.195/2008 & onnected Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

¶0settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan K/ian vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:-. "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the ucqtiired land had a building potentiality and proceed t determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."

¶39Considering the fact that it would le very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of he fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assesing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying hç Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for coinpuing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special Fe.tures to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Vi1lge Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellar.ts of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 1 0% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determind by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the aforead locational advantages providing a higher building potehtiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are part1' allowed to the extent of awarding 10% increase over and above the rndket value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan While treating the appellants of Vllage Pochanpur at par with the appellants bf Village Bhãrthal and Vil1ae Bijwasan, the appeals of A.App, No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan t.A.App. No. .111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur !-- -1-11 S H , * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.RtS.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godaha Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and ]Vir.11S.Rautela, Advocate Mr. S .K.Rout, Mr.B .I(4outray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela (Advocate for respondent in appeals u1ed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tornar Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S!I(So1an1cj and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: :Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.1ohitrao Jadhav and Ms .Navlin Swain, Ms .K.Kaumudj Kiran, Advocates for LAC/[JQI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.S'ethj, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, AdvOcates for DDA. CORAM: HON'I3LE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR.. %

12.01.2012 C. 752/201 2 (For correction. This is an application for seeking typcgraphical correction in Order of 6th January 2012. Counsel appearing for the appe11ants, have accepted the notice LA-App.No.

r of the application. Advance copy of this apiication has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical errorpointed out by the respondent in the decision of 61h January, 2012 is that in .àragraph no: 40 •of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensatior assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This i not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. J In view of the aforesaid, this appIicaion stands disposed of UNIL GA UR) ONT JANUARy 12, 2012 JUDGE ..pkb . LA.App.No. 1195/2008 . Pace 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012. + LA.APP. 476/2011 AJAY KUMAR & 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, 63to71) 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 Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanj ay 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