Shanti Devi & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India &Anr. \ i JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IL GAUR) JUDGE I % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (GRID-A) Ksjeiy^onrNoyem Fronounced on: January 06:, 20H LA.APP.l195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIRSHARlvlA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.JitinTewathia,Advocates Mr.AnandYadav and Ms.AnitaTomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. . LMr.RaghiivinderGodara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi.and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate N4r.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.PankaJ Vivek, Advocate Mr.RcijeshYadav.Mr.Deepak.Khosla,Mr.SamitIChosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate ' Mr.Atiil Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rauiela,(.Vdvocatesfor respondemin appealsfiled by UOI) versus UNION 01' INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddur,SeniorAd^•ocate with Mr.Saajay Pathak,Mr.lVioh.itrao.Jadha\' and Ms.Na\'linSwain. Ms.K.KaumiidiKiran,Advocatesfor I.AC/lIOI Mr.AJayVenna, Ms.j3ecnashaw Soni. Mr.Mukcsh Kumar,Mr SVK.Sethi,xVlr.Pa^vanMathiir,Mr.Kunal Sharma, A:dvoc;itt; for DDA !:A.APP.412/2008 & CM.No,4096/2U08 fCross-Objections).iA AFP 008' LA.APP.453/2008;LA.AP!>.688/2()08^ CM.Mo.5990/20K)'(Cross-Objeclions); fA.Ai'J\()97/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.AP'P.701/2008& CM.No,510/2009 (Cross-Ol^ections): l.A,APP,768/2008; l.A.APP.770/2008:, lA.App. ^k). & connectedAppnalsofVillsgf;Bharth;.il :A.Aop.N».S. Cloniuici.edAppoolsofVilla(5(;BHwasdri lA.App. iVi.i. 11 &connr-MdAppealsofViilaiK:l-ochariDin-n , - '

¶1Oi .f.9 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); 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; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP,798/2008 & CM.No:.615/2009 (Cross-Objections);•LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.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.80(5/2009 (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.9]5/2008; 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-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.) 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections) LA.APlM032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008 l.,A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (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.l 052/2008 LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1055/2008;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~0bjections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.-623/2009(Cross-Objections);

1..A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); 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.1093/2008; A.y\PP. 1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No;3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP. 1110/2008 & CM.No,3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831 /2009 (Cross-Objection,s); LA.APP. 1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.ll 15/20()8; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; LA.APP.l 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & C]yl,No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008; LA.APP.l 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008 LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008 LA.APP.1170/2008; LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.l 17272008; LA.APP.1173/2008 LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.l 181/2008 LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& 'CM.No.6.933/2009(Cross-Objections) l.A.APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP. 1186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 LA.App, No. 519.S/?.008& connnctod Appeal.sof Village Bharthal l.A.App,No. ?.9i/20.10 connected Appeal.';of VillageDijvvasan LA.App. r-Jn. :l.1.1/--010& connectecl Appeal.sof VillagePoch'anour' l^age ;l of 23 •.% (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008 LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP.I'l95/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009fCross-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.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP.I277/2008; 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; l.A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA. APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; I..A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP:459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.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-Objcctions);LA.APP.210/2009 &•' CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.224,/2()09; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009' & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245,/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP^95r^009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; JU<APP.480/2009; LA.AH^^niiS^. LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009;, LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP,45/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; LA.APP.l 138/2008; LA.APP. 138/2009; . LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP; 190/2009; LA.APP. 13 9/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009;. LA.APP.201/2009 CiM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.45 8/2009 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.l 176/2008 l./V.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002,Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) . Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.'294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN).• V DEVENDBRKUMAR' ....Appellant . Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh iy\.App. No 1195/;?.008fi connected Appealsof VillageBharlhal IA.App. No. 294/2010& connoctodAppcaLsofVillage Bijwasari l.A.App. No. 1.11/zpiO& connectcdAppeal.';ofVillagePochanpu.' • -Y versus Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Roiit and Mr.B.K,Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) UOl & ANR LA.APP

1.A.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP, •LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 52/2010 . 56/2010 . 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 •354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOL^LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and 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.BankeyBihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.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. 35L''2010-LA.APP. 356/2010 • LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP.406/2010' LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP, 80/2010 C.M.No.964/2011 (Cr LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 5L'20] 0 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55.''2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP.277/2010 LA.APP.281/2010: LA.APP.284/2010 LA.APP.285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP.294/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP, 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP, 362/2010 LA,APP. 363/2010 LA.APP.407/2010 LA.APP,408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 L/V.APP.722,/2010 L.A,APP.725/2010 LA.APP.726/2010 , LA.APP.73L/2010 LA.APP.732/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & •oss-objections) • (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&'B/LA/13417datedJ3.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 Sc AAvard No 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) • ' AND ' • • LA.App. Mo. 119.V-2008&connnctodAppealsof VillagfiBharthnI l-A.App,No. ag/i/ZOlO&conncicteriAppealsof ViliageBijwasan !.A.App,No. •n.i/.?010 &connecU>dAppealsof VillagePochanpur .Pago 4 of 29 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06 2012 LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: versus Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40~ 44 to49, 59, 63 to71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) # ^ UNIONOF INDIA&ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain.,Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA: .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' LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. J.A.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. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 154/2010 . 165/2010- . 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2'010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 l.A,App. No. U95/2008&connoctndAppealsof VillageBharlhal l.A.,'\pp,No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App: No. lTl/?.oao&connectndAppealsof VillagePochanpur . 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 129/2011 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, L/\..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. LA.APP4 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 I19/.20I1 429/2011 522/2011 5357201 1 Pa,3e 5 of 29 jU % • ^ > \ (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi)' HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, therefore with the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/LA/13417dated U.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and }ochanpurare beingdisposedofb}' this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'Dwarka Phase-IJ' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three 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 Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(M'ithoutop soil). '

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheii-acquired l-A.App. No. 1195/2008&connoctedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal :.A.App.No. ?.9'1/2010&connocledAppealsofVillageBijwasan 17\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillafifiPochanpur agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acrc for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the prcccdents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag ami Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai ra. State ofGoa and Ann,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors ps. State ofHaryana and Am\,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Fs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors\, (2010) 3 SCC-661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, ra. Union of India AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Naml (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India & A\m\, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana & Ors., , ] 2010(9) SCALFt 41; Chakas re. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCALl^ 362; Avinash Dhavdji A'^aik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors ra. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCe 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana ra. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land AcquisitionOfficer Anr ra, M.IL Rafiq Saheh, (2011) 7 SCC 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer^ lA.App, No. .119,')/?008?>! conru:ctc;dAppealsofVillage!Bliarthai l.A.App. No. 7.94/2010&• conncclttd Appealsof VillageBijwa.san •A.App. No in/?.010&cotinfictedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • Page 7of 29 , / V Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC\1S-, RisalSingh& Ors. Fx UnionofIndia&Ann, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union of India and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Ann, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Fs. Union ofIndia & 176(20]1) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh DevelopmentAuthority & Ann, decided on'24.04.2008; Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs w. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & .Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP No.656/2008titled as Sushil.Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

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

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the devclof: time and the same cannotbe limitedto

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S/1 Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage ra passes flirough the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parls, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. No. 119S/20C.8&connficl.dAppealsof VillageBhariha! IA.App. Mo. 391/20.1.0&conncctodAppealsof VillageIJiJwasan !A.App. No. 11 ]/20:l.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 8 of 7.9 ment in the area over a period of the near future alone. omar, counsel lor appellants that way line ol Village Biijwasan C) •V and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road lO'O meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-ll again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsandthereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere ^ also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras \¥ere also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslm'ec-pto highlightthat the boundary ot Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has ^ illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"' October, 2000 vide which land use of the three ; villages in question was changed from agriculturar to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entireland of VillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24^' October,1994,

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel foi the appellantsthat the aioresaidtwo Notificationshave been wiongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. IA.App. No. 119r)/;'.00S& connoctfldAppealsofVillagG Bharthal !.A.App.,No.?.94/?,010& corinuctodAppealsofVillageBijwasan ^ LA.App. No. 1U/M10& connedcdAppealsof VlllaBG Pochanpur Pape9of29 -f ReddiA Ors. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hydembad&Ore, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in itis later decisionin Vdho Dass vs. SlateofHaryana& Ors.,-2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquiredland must be adjudged keepingin view the developmentin the area overaperiodoftime and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality. 10, Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale DecdsofVillagePochanpurto highliglit that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplarscannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there ,s no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued becauseof any special advantages'andas per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjimiMoluBessaivs. Stateoffioa mdAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710,the averageofsaleexetnplarsoughtto be taken as lepiesentingthe inarketprice of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable'sale instances, therefore, reliancc placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circlerates for detenriiningthe marketvalueofdie acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentofmarketvalue of the acquiredland was sougln by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson tl,e basisofthe I.& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determmedrates fixed by the Government for allotmentof alternate tl,e yeai-2000-200,.Keepingin view the location,situationand potent,ahtyof the acquired land, determination'ofits market value is

¶0connncledAppealsofVillaBG Pochanpur >\ 'V • sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyonthe basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of,LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the AMfard No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flaM>ed in the course of the proceedings 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,of land in ; the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. ; c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated ;

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territoiy ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in Sangunthalaversus tahsildar,2010(3)see 661. A d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per 'j..established law has to be considered,beforeascertaining \ thevalueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds : producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil vet^sus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigher rate should,not be disregardedin (.A.Aiip,No. .1.19^2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Dharlhal LA.App. No. ?9'l/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageliljwasan LA.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur p .,g / case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana 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 ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v^. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the; impugned judgment •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 fra.m.ed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 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. The masterplan and Notifications of Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the . appellantleadevidencein respectof the 7f^' amendment' of 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 land, is situated, y\>as • • deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor y , electedfrom, there. No Panchayat elections were ^ held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Suprem.e Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and. Anr vs. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpayfor, thesubject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also l.(A.App.No. 1195/2008& connncledAppealsofVillaBG Bharthal LA.App. No. 'mp.OW& connectedAppealsofVillage Biiwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connecttidAppealsof VillagePochanpur p 12 of 29 . / 'w' auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land M'as acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka 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 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityof the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was held, that thepurposefor which land is acquired is .a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotMality to be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land, being occupied bv the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The ^lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portionofthe land is beingconsideredas ^ • house site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13Jn the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethatthe effectof LA.App. Mo. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal JA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof yillagG Bijwasan l-A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppeal,':of VillagePochanpur •' •\v' urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh DattatrayThirthkarvs. State' ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)A Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation icflcctingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals. -i

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sarijay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51 Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified•copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence [or determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered, and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect maiket value ofthe acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ^ ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLa! vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Saipal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil j-easons for taich shaip increase are explained by producing in evidence the sellc LA.App. No. im5/2008&connec.tfidAppealsofVillage Bhart.hal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillaijeBijwasan l-A.Apfj.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillaEoPochanp Jer ' I'agc I't of2.9 I and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marlcetwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflected,n the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, hut for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO ratos/Pre-DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SmhilKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factored into, while fixing the minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1 Apiil, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in^ Smhil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted - thatthereis no scopefor fiirtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned . judgment deserves to be modified deleting (he enhancementby the RclerenccCourtwhiletaldnginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves lo be brought in line while granting appreciation @10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. ' ' IV. After consideringthe rival submissionsadvanced by both the S.des and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparablelairdis the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awillin. ^ " &connmcidAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page I'i of ,Z.9 >-4 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionofpotentialvalue ofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other Hind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandfor puttingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(ill) possibilityofobtainingM>ater and electricsupplyfor occupantsof buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin 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 occupiersof buildings,ifbuilton the y acquiredland; and

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

¶181he potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. I'or the said puipose,the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for I.A.App. No. 1.195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. IMo. 2'Ml?.010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan 1-A.App.No. .1.11/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur V 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 Avinash(supra).While reiteratingthe.^relevantfactors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon 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 advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land.

¶20K is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto Vvith advantage,

¶21Apex Court in VaUiyammal (Supra),while takingnote of the 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 Anjani deserve attention, which are as under:- iA.App, No. 11.95/2008& connccledAppealsofVillage Bharlhal IA.App. Mo. 294/xdlOa connectedAppealsofVillageISijwssan LA.App: No. 11..1./M10& connedeclAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pago 1.7of 29 5^ V Vv "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 bona fide transaction, M'ill be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of t-wo sales are m.arkedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are yvith reference 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. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made ! by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as . follows:- "// is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place betyveen a willing vendee and. the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between 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 and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. k

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Prim.arily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for developmentin the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. iA.App. No. ]195/200B& connectedAppnalsofViilagGBharthai i.A.App. No, 294/2010& connoctedAppealsofVillage liijwasan LA,App. No, i:1/2010 connectedAppealsof VillagePor.hanpur Pgge jgof 29 \ On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas: In somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and. high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 50% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1%) or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15%) per annum, I ^ the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat best be only around half of it, that is about 5%o to 7.5%oper annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. 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 increaseto be appliedwould dependupon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determiningthe . market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved,market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contem.poraneoussale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour to-fiveyears. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a, neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or l-A.App. No. il9.'5/200f!& connficledAppealsofVillage;Bhartha! . SA.Apo. No. 2.91/2010& connfictGdAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA,App No. .1.1.1/7.010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanp'jr "p ./ P' acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the ^rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin ; pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease. "

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Hmymm StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC ' (Supra) is as under "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different , siluationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, ^ ^ M forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with , referenceto previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification." , ,

¶25IJndisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied , • upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSyvamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/J0) which are basicallybetween,one set of co-ownersand Radha SymmiSatsang Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 I3iswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landmthe villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidendy, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds IXApp. No. 1.195/2008&conncctedAppealsof VillageBharthal I.A App. No. 2S4/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan iAApp. No. :l.l.l/20]0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur •> (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 exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not —been got examined by the appellants.Had the purciiaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011•and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siiigh ra. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuch prior to theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the . considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (]k.PW-l/4 to lix.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,200'0, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (ltx.PW-1/11) 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 representativeprice for the acquired lands in quesLion.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situated lands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circular,rates for the developedlands and Pre-DcterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. K Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabad and Ors., j995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots In a welldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood IA.App, No, ,1,].9.V2008& connficled,AppsaLsofVillage Bhartlial l,A,App, No, 294/:'.01.0& conncctedAppnalsofVillage;Bijwasan LA,App. No, &conn(!ctedAppealsof.VillagePochanpur • ^2 of 29 3-^ orwhetherithe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becom.es inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe . publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what could,be done is tofind out the m.arketvalue of the acquired land, with re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section.4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by • a small percentage having regard to the degree of its -4' buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no . evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland, indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even, if formed in the acquired, land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and . transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supia),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Prc-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand (Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of lA.App,No.,im:)/2008&conncctndAppealsof Villago Bharthal LA.App. No. 2fM/20.1.0&conncctfidAppealsof Villa|?eBijwasan LA.App. Mo. lUpmo&conno!cledAppealsof VillagePochanpur \ the undeveloped acquired lands, llius, I find that the Reference Court has rightl}''not adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressiveincrease method would be relevant criteria;for assessing the market value of the land in questionwhile takinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the I.and AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified,

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the \ acquiredland'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a "cliablestandard,if the gap is of only of a few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap between the two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis oI sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 119i;/2008& connectGdAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connccUidAppnalsofVillage Bijwasan l-A,App.No. a.1,1/2010&connoctHdAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pagp 24 of 29 r( escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶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 coordinatebench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar'I find that 10%) increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon SushU Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12%o per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%) per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%o per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date offixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. l" April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the mstant appeals deserves to be Hirther increased or not. Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by thie learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages mquestion to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994 ihc land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto I.A.App. No. ]195/2008&connectGdAppenisofVillageBharthal i.A.App.No. 294/2010&connoclndAppealsofVillage Bljwasan l-A.App. No. J1.1/20.1,0&conimctedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page Z5 of 29 # presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere beingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat tlie sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the i.ssuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquiied lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then ^ appellantscouldhave laid theirhandson othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village I'ochanpurto areligiousinstitutioniind anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-l/ll)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsoiRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-l/lI) are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the'sale instance of Village Samallcha (hx. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid y sale instances.Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSJDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is agap between i-A.A?P. Mo. .1.19.V2008&connoclodAppeaLsof VillageBharthal .•A,App. to. 291/;.OlO&ccnncctodAppeal?of VlllaijeBijwasan lA.App. (Mo, 1.11/20.10&connectodAppealsofVillagePochanptit Page 26 of 2.9 would be cxpccted to 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 Sushi! Kumar (Supra) and1find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bcnch of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Couil in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Jnnding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part 11, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the l.A App. No. 119.'j/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 1-A.App. No. 294./2010 & connGcted Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA.App. No. 1.11/2010& connected Appealsof Village Pochanpur Page 2.7 of Zy / settled legal position aptly higl,lighted by tlie Apext Court in Mirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238. in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up buddingsmthe immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto account the increasein priceattributable to such buddingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fa6t that it would be .very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the faet that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is ^ bioadpiobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby unifonnly applying the Government'sminimum pricesfor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePoehanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appcltoits of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Smhil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin Ihesc matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin II,e acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthaland Village Biiwasair.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePoehanpurat par with uie appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof 1A.App. No. .1.11/20.10&connectedAppcafsof VillagePoehanpur PaKe 28 of :!9 \ l^-o the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these three villagesin questionis determined@f16,50,000/- the Category A land and @?14,69,600/-per bj^^ha for the Category lands in question. '

¶41On the aloresaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, stalLitorybenelitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,excepttor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, ior u-hichperiodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aioresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE "''-I"' • 0 /' ri't' r '• ''' l-A.App.No. 1195/2008&conneclndAppealsof VillageBharthal No. 2!M/?.0.10&conncctedAppealsof VillageBIjwasan lA.App. No. 111/20.10&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr SK.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby IJOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefoi Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SaniayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, . Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. , CORAM: ) HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR ORDER 0^^

12.0L2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012(For corrertioiil. This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'' January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice -iimii "" ' V, ofthe apphcation.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas aheadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointedout by the respondentin the decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No: 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe cajxiedout forthwith. In vjewof the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY12,2012 JUDGE l^Icb LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

% + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 490/2009 Reserved on: November -j'g. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 SHANTI DEVI & ORS. Appellant • Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.AnandYadavand MsjAnitaTomar,Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. ! Mr.Raghuvinder Godana,|Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.jRautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhoslaand Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi . Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOL Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate forDDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR