Rajinder Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.0L2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb riL GAUR) JUDGE % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 (GRJD-A) LA.APP. 1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR. SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr. Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate 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, Mr.Deepak Khoski, Mr.Samit Khosla and 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 hy UOI) versus IFNIONOF INDIA & ANR. . ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sarijay Pathakj Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Vermaj Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA LA.APP.412/2008 & CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.452/2008; La.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& • CM.No.5990/2010(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBhartfial lA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan v IA.App. No. 111/7.010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pagei o(-29 r ^ CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008-CMNo6n/9nnQ^& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections):.LA.APP.774/2008& LM 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-ObjeS-CMX'6f5/for9'Vr^-TK'^^-'°'''LA.APP.785/2008;LA.APP.798/2008I CM.No615/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.799/2008 & CM No 931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP813/2008 & CM.No^l795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008'& CM.NoSot f^A.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA APP 820/2008• LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APp'ssSs LA.APR844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No779/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Obiection CMr709S'^ LA.APP.901/2008;LA.APP.915/2008;Li.ApT95&^^ CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA APP 973/2008- ^ CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008 LA.APR976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No 17340/2008 Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-ObiectionsV LA.APP.1032/2008& CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections)-LA APP 1046/2008 LA.APP.1Q47/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008&CM.No.7851/2009 (Crof^^^^^^^^^ a ^ CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008-t'1 ^ CM.Nq.17262/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008' CmZ 66 nr^ C^No.416/2009(Crcss-Obje«ions);LkAPP:I05™& CMNo752?on LA.APP.I055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.No^52/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0biections^ LA.APP.1O6O/2O08;LA.APP.IO62/2OO8&•CM,No.546/2009(&S.ObS 1t'tnn 1074/2008& CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections) TLA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM.No,462/2009(Cross-Obiections~) &CM No 2448/9008 ™-'^°;'"®2/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086/2008 & CN«o.2448/2008(Cross-ObjecUons);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No619/2009 LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP1095/2008-rr (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l108/2008& OM No 3828 LA.APP.l109/2008; LA.APP.Ill0/2008& CM No 3S-?oooq LA.APP.1111/2008;LA.APP.l112/2008& CM.No38j1/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.HI3/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 ; LA.APP.Ill5/2008;LA.APP.l116/2008; LA.APP.l121/2008 LA.AIP.1126/2008;LA.APP.1129/2008 &. CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Obiections) LA.APP.1130/2008:LA.APP.1131/2008&CM.No.566/2009(Qoss-O^^ T 5/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections)-LA APP 1140/2008-LA.APR1156/2008;LA.APP.l157/2008;LlAPP.n58/2008&CMNo^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.lJ59/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008-LA APP 1166/9008 LA APP 1170/StA (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; rt'^DD la.APP.1171/2008;LA.APP.l172/2008;LA.APP.1173/2008-LA.APP.l178/2008;LA.APP.1179/2008-LA APP 1181/2008- .A.APP.1182/2008;LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(C^^s^b LA.APP.1184/2008;LA.APP.l.85/2008;LA.APP.ll86/2008yciSLS22^^ ...A.App No. 1195/7.008&connectedAppeaLsof VillageBharthal AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan A.App, Mc. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur LA., • ' ^ Mppeais or village Pochannnr Page 2 of 29. LA.APP.n98/2008& CM No 6935/200WrmtOK ' 197/2008; LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP1203/S TI LA.APP.1200/2008; LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP1213/2008-TA 1211/2008; CM.No.6957/2009(Cross.Objections)-LAAPP^22^^ CM.No.384I/2009(Cross-ObiectionsV Vfap^ i ' ^''^•APP-1241/2008& LA.APP.1275/2008;LA APP 1276/2008-Ta'^Ipp 1252/2008; LA.APP.1280/2008;LA APP 1281/2008-t^app!?^ 1279/2008; la.APP.31/2009; LA APP33/^^9 ' fa !ppLA.APP.-1284/2008; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM No 746/2011 ^p-^PP^^J/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM No 7103/2009 LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP95/2009 & pmm o LA.APP.74/2009; LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009-LASV2f/?nnQ^ (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.136/2009; LA APP 137/2009-TA^ppJ^i? ' LA.APP.135/2009; LA.APP.140/2009; LA APP 143/2009-Ta'app ^^-^PP-139/2009; LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP 187/2009-TA'app nn( ' ^^-APP-145/2009; LA.APP.197/2009; LA APP 198/2009-T^^'^pnin LA.APP.191/2009; LA.APP.202/2009;LA.APP203/2009-LA APP 9n«/9n^nQ°^' ^^•^PP-201/2009; (Cross-Objections);LA APP 210/2009 ^ na CM.No.7027/2009 LA.APP,2n/2009t LA LA.APP.22.4/2009;LA.APP.227/2009-LA APP ?30/7nno^ LA.APP.223/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA APP 241/2009-taTppo? CM.No.7206/2009 •LA.APP.249/2009t LA APP 257/2009 Tatpponf LA.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP437/2009-t'a'Appif^/o^^^' ^^-APP-B05/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP-466/2009-' t'a'^pplonf ' LA.APP.458/2009;' LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP490/9009-T^^APplm/oS^' LA-APP-481/2009; LA,APP,494/2009; LA.APP495/2009-' /A'Xpp^na/ ' LA.APP.493/2009; LA,,APP.507/2009; LA APP 508/2009-Ja"app ' ^^•APP-506/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA App's12/2009-T^ALA.APP.5 10/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA APP 15/201o' TAfpp LA.APP.567/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA APP 13/2011-'ta A^'pff; ' LA.APP.48/2010; LAAPPJ177/2008;LAAPp;i20I/20(i8;Ll:APp:23lS"/' 26/2002-2003toed23.10.2002,Village . 0^ (GRID-B) Re^jyed on: Decp.mherOR 7011 Pronouncedon: January06^ ?ni7 ' LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DEVENDERKUMAR Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr:vir;n'^rrs"ngl Pf ^010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46, 49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LAAPP. LAAPP. LAAPP. 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. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 334/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010

7.5/2010 & Respondents Through: ^!lr.Sanjay Ppddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay ICumarPathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, 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 Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. 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. 11/2010 53/2010, 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 49/2010 54/2010 59/2010 223/2010 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 588/2010 725/2010 731/2010 764/2010 364/2010 99/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) 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. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.112000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,'Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND lA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharlhal i.A,App. No. 29.4/2010& connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan . i.A.App. No.'1.11/2010& connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2017 LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K:Solankiand Mr.S,K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29,30, 33,36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64,65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: .....Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. 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. 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 523/201 r 536/2011 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 . 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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 LAAPP, 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. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. '. 156/2010 '.215/2010 .250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 'A.App.NO. ai.9V2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal • .App. Ko. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBij'wasan I.A.APP.NO. ni/2010&connectedAppealsofVilla^P^hZr % A—No.Xnm-2m M.-iSwCrCp^C' CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR ORDEI^

06.01.2012

¶1Smce.the groundson which enhancementofthe compensationis -ght by the appellants in these bt^ch of appeals are identical ereforew.th the consentoflearnedcounselfor the partiespresentat ehearmg of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to ^onfl.c.no"No.F.J0(S0)96-L&BfLAfUmdatedJS.J2.2000.relating o geogiaphically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasatt and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby thiscommonorder '

¶2Acqmsitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'Wfa ^ De,h, commenced with the issuance of of JS'^ ^Of the Land Ac,ulsl«onAct ^B94 .peilaimng to vast tract of agricultural lanH • • ' r:::r""" """••=-- ' -l^arthal,.Bijwasan^ndPochanpur. 3-Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree vmagesstoodacquiredby the RespondentsvidethreeseparateAwards !•<-, Award No 26/2009 9nA'2 a , wdras, • o/zuuz-2003. Award No 28/2009 9nn-3 j a No.30/2002-900^" •^»/^U02-z003;andAward granting compensation (S) ?13 89 In •Block 'A' (level fielH v, ® lacs per acre for (level held - with top soil) and (® ?I7 57 Block'B'(withoutopsoil). "@-'2.32lacs per acre for "-pp.«.n«o.o.""™cwC*.«X"p'rCr 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 acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelating to VillagePochanpurhave been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals,furtherenhancementof compensationsoughtby the appellantsof Villages Bharthal and Bij.wasanis at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State OfGoa and Am.,

(2010) 13 see 710;Stibh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 See 661; RanvirSingh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha FakiraPatil

(D) through LRs vs. The Specialhand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRT 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. State ofMaharashtra,(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb,(2011) 7 sec 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, l-A.•App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal - IA.App. No.-294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan 1A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur pj ^ fjg Gujarat and An,:. AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010)]1SCC 175;RisalSingh&Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia&Am,, 2006(89)DRJ 527(DB);LaiChandvs. Union "/India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RatneshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)andAnr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mah^h DattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapU Mehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndiad Anr 176(2011)DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titledas SuratSingh vl ' Delh, DevelopmentAuthority&Anr., decided on 24.04.2008;Om Prakash(dead)byLRsandOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004)10 SCC 627-Satpal& Ors vs. Union ofIndia. (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP.' No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Vnion ofIndia, decided on

6.09.2011;,LA. APP. No.59/2007titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of

(170)DLT37'

¶6On tl,e strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan.learnedarguingcounselfor the appellants athe locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturallandhas to be fn-st understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be ad,udgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area overaperiodof .me andthesamecannotbe limitedto thenearfuturealone Delht-Rewart-Jodhpurbroad gage railway Une of Village Biijwasan passesthroughthe land ofVillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts ..e.,on theeasternsideoftirerailwaylineis theIGIAirport,New Delhi .tu/.010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarkaSub-Cit}^ Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land intp two portions; (i) North Easternside, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanl^ilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmqntofDwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/mscpto highlightthatthe boundary of 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 agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24"' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been vvrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.ApD. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 1-A.App.Mo, 294/2010&connectGdAppealsofVillageBijwasan L'V.App. No, lll/'^oio&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 9 of.29 Reddi & Ors. V5. Land Acquisition Officer,Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its-later decisionin Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the ar^^. 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 land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied fromi ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsought,to be taken as representing,the market price of the land which comes to ^57 lacs per acre and since.thesale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourt upon the minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandispatentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentofmarket value ofthe acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the CTOvemm.ent and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate plots mthe year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is i-A.App.No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A,App.No, 7.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA,App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)asreferredto above.

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

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

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

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which-as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The ^'Jon'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin 1A Aoo'f ^harthal AApp, No. 294/2010&connGcledAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 1.1],2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai v^. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by, averagingof different ty^pes of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupona certanland. ,f) Relied upon judgment datM

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject land while ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalue ofthe land is much higherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockA and ^13,36,000 in BlockB in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram V5. State of Haiyana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No.l framed on 27.2.2007. g) B.,valuatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the ' land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. The .masterplanand Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is alsopertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74^^^ amendment of the ConstitutionofIndia, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was electedfrom there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerjhefact that the developmentin the area has a directeffect on the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal i.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur aacftWsimUarlysituatedlandas commercialblocks .• e late ofabout X2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland^ W is even lowerthan the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2 for similarlysituatedla,Vl. » ^ponaentNo. 2 k) Does not taiK into accountthepossibilityofchangeof reiteratedthat the land use of VillaseDhool V/ ^ ofDeTslt '"--daries "'S£rS£E'SH>r? M'ere acauirfr] ^ sues. Ine lands '^^sputinbett:rr7h::^::z:!:^:^' sLolV!,; No-7/2009.fte factual detailshave been providedwithaprayerthat the ye"a.tsOfthis appealhe treated«par wUh the co-appelLsof^ otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplememingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urgedbyMr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof . 1 1 qt;/->nno o . _ uibanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Am, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, Reserved Auction Raters of the area are relevant to determinethe market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesrelieduponby the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the con-ect market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectmgjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certifiedcopy of the Sale Deed is. an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence tor determmationof the market value unless and,until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) II SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Am.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No:656/2008titledas SushilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat sharp increase in price in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidencethe seller LA.APP. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir 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 Satsang, 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 Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBench of this Court in SiishilKumar (supra)and Raj Singh (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 factoredinto, While fixing the minimumindicativeprice of the agriculturalland by the Governmentas on April, 2000 and by granting appreciatiorithereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deservesto be broughtin line while granting appreciation @ 10% per armum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the^decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue of the comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling LA.App. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ITV.Acp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • Page 15 of 29. seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE41 in these words:-,.. "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or village which had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as the casemay be;

(lii) possibilit}^ofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence, of highways, public roads, layouts of. buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityorcloseproximityofthe acquiredland;

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

(vii) lands aroundthe acquired,landor the acquiredland itself being in demand,for 'building purposes, to specify a few. "

¶18The potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildmgpurposesdependsupon alarge numberof factors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for- •A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.APP,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoclianpur i l,.A I.A. LA.- , . , — ^ Wk V^WI II it^LCU /SUUHrllS fW \/lli;)CTa 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 AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsmall pieces ofland relied .-!V upon by the appellantscould not be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsoflargepiecesof laridwere not available.

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

¶714The legafpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalfof the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage availableto them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It IS a well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of provingthe true market value of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage.

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakiilgnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent .observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserveattention,which areas under:- •App. i\io. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan A r.r. M/-. 111 /-ini /-> o . _ . ' village DlJWdbdn V.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur \A.i LA LA "The legalposition is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highestofthe exemplars,which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered Where howeverthere are severalsales ofsimilarlandswhosepricesrange in anarrowbandwidth, the average thereofcan be taken, as representingthe marketprice. But where the values,disclosedin respectof two sales are markedly different,It can only lead to an inferencethatthey are with referenceto dissimilarlandsor that the lower value sale is on accountofunder-valuation or otherpricedepressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note ofthe clinchingobservations pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Faklra Patil (Supra), Which are as follows:- "I.t is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactionsin respectofthe land under acquisitionor in Its absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands possessingsimilar . value or utilit);taken place between a willingvendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreedbetweenreasonableprudentpersons actingin the normalmarketconditionsare the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principlesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in OilandNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra),are as under:- ''Primarily the increase in land prices depends on four ' Jactors - situationof the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectofdevelopmentin the vianity increase in prices would be slow, steady and giadual, withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. App. No. n9V2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ^.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan 'App. ,Jo. 111/201.0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur On the otherhand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivity all around, the escalation in marketprice is at a much higher rate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalationsin prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreperyear, duringthe nineties.On the otherextreme in remote rural areas where there, was no chance of 'any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated Joryearsor rose marginallyatanominalrateofl% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increasesin market value oflands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat best be ^^oundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%perannum This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in ^tZ7ame^ Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe marketvalue byprovidingappropriateescalationover the provedmarketvalueofnearbylands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there IS no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor neighbourhood The said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale ''''T 'Object acquisition by onlyafew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond f neighbouring land What may be areliablestandardifthe gap is onZ few yean, may become unsafe and unreliablestandard market-value of a land acquired in 1992 adovtinlthp annual increase "ethod ^Uh reference 'to lZl or ia.aSp Z' in/lSioan ' 1 pp NO. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur # acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the \ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drasticchange apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurts inprices affectingthe verystandard ofincrease."

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative'sales methods.Whatwas said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, 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.,RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had puichased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which variedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre. • 26. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe con-ectmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds LA.App. No 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/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 establishthe advantagesattached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale 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-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaidsale exemplars been got examined,then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay suchahighprice for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e.. Radha Swami Satsang, who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide SaleDeed executedon 25" March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas MSingh vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamutpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same camiotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instatitmatters, thoughthe land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has comein evidence thatthe acquiredlands were beingused for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thui, it becomesevidem that the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudem person having knowledge of prevailing l-/">.App.No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •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 (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by the , Reference Court. -e-r

¶28So far as the sale exemplarof Village Samalkha(Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosing exorbitantprice of ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"^ January,2000, 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 (Ex.PW-1/11)vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon includingtube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

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

¶30Parametersgoverningfixationof marketvalue of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtinits decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V, Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the _ determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in awelldevelopedlayoutin tkelTeighborhood lA.App, No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • Page22of29 / 'f-epricefetchedZsal 'ZZ^^^^ '^ layout of buildinzvlnf^ ' th "" undeveloped inevitablefor the Court to fi d '' 'becomes, fetchedor to befetcheThA T reliedupon byanyIftheJrtl Pi°"'" 'helayouts. M'hichtheplotscouldhavefJch^'lf'o(P"2 publication of the nr-pli • • 4(1) oftheaL?x by the sales ofthe nlnt. • T ofpricefetched neighborhoodof the acquireTf the then what couldbe doneVtlfind , the acquiredland with refer^^etT T publicationunderSection4(1) ofth °f *3rir:-t«irss; ,/fci/..xrrx™fj'r7"" re^or/ //^e method nf 0-7 • b^ildin,poten^Z'iTZrZr'', ^^i<^ence-ofsales ofhtiilH-i ^hen there is no t:::idTanT'' - on,,d,acuitiesin adoptionof.teoHand changed «e-De.™inedRates in rilT adjommg undeveloped freehold lands Fnil • u Chand(Supra),acoordinateBeneh ofthis CoZ -f™ "•" (SW I.. fc ®"'"' 'A*:».°:bSoTc^^ma""',"'' the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, Ifind that the ReferenceCourt has nghtlynotadoptedthe DDA ratesfor^allotmentofdevelopedlandor the DDA'sPre-Dete,-minedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marlcetvalueofthe ac.quiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalueofthe landmquestionwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar learnedseniorcounselfor the respondentfcross-objectorthat even ifthe' ' escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Nour,cation for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Not,ficat.onfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthepricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris morethan theaforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancementgranted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of the Apex CourtmLai Chand(Supra),cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 yearsand beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if ,t relates to aneighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap isofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger.In the instantcase, the gap b t he h-e-IIIS Ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,itwouldbe unsafeto adoptthe tiode of determining the market value by providing appropriate IA.APP No iSo J VillageBijwasan No. 1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwan'anted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in ciushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @ 12% 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 GovermTient's mmimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi,by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1®' April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceasedto be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban.It is trtrethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut thatby itselfis not sufficientto IA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l o . I . .App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being rpmlf h" ™ aspectofthere bemgany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands .uesfon. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof..... heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale the said landswas foragriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rafter, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the -uanceof Notificationunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, .the acquiredlands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been .ncreasempncedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994 then ., appellant,couldhave laidtheirhandson othersale InstancesIn the .n quest,on^But,indeedappellantscannotrelyuponthe saleofthe land of 11age Sa.nalkha(Ex.PW-l/Il)without leading any evidence to -bhsh.hat,thequalityand potent,alityofthe saleexemplarsof...." Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof .nagcSamalkha(Ex.PW-l/lI) are comparablewith the acquiredlands " an so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of age Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/l1) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant Itighercompensationwhile relyingupon the aforesaid sale msta..es.Therefore,in view of the afore-referreddictum of the r vc (Supra),unifonnrateofco.npensationdeservesto be awarded o. the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the ™n.mum price fixed by the Gdvemtnentfor the agricultural,land in •. ™'he rise of price due to higher ^^P-n-Lty.Tak.ngnote of the fact that there is agap betweenIt pp. No, 111/2010SconmclMApp"lsofVNI.esp"cta"p", I' would be expectedto be the marketgrowth and what the market had -tuallygrown,Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value ofthe acquired ands S,ngh(Supra)as well as inSushilKumar(Supra)andIfind no reasonto takeadifferentviewthan the one whichhad beentakenby coordmateBench of this Coutt in the aforesaid cases of Jai Sing, (Supra)and (Supra).

¶38This Court is ofthe consideredview that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Viliage Bijwasan has nghtly rehed upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural tn Delhi to fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands in question. >n .ngo the ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthalandVillage Bywasart,ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situation of he acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis bonte out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthattheaspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acqu,redlands beingin closevicinityofthe IGI Aitport,IndianOil and tarat PetroleumDepots and ofRailway line passingthrough Village Bharthal and tlrere being a100 meters vide road startingf,om fromShtvMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe aoqutred lands ,n two portions, and there being Fan,, Houses in the v.c.n,tyof the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionofthe ReferenceCoun. In the consideredopinionofthis Conrt.on accountof aotesa. locattonaladvantages,the acquiredlandsin question,certainly --mehtgherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I valueTf7 " le acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on accountof the higherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the I.A. LA. i settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Namherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increaseinprice attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be veiy difficultto provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesof the instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsofVillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover,and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthaland Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof lA.App. Mc. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage-Pochanpur the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. 1hus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^j^^rthe Category'A' land and@?14.69,600/-per b^forthe Catefc^B' lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enlianeementin the compensationawarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. VOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor theperiodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, forwhichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid.Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid tenns with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar Generalofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb .A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (• C ^(SUNILGAUR) JUDGE ^ 1'^ pCul- . IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Through: Mr.B.S.Maan.Mr.AmitMaan,IVfrJaiftltoh, Ms.SmitaMaan.Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocate. Mr.Rohtas,Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rauteia,Advocate c '^''•®-K-Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.SNegi and Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor ^^spondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefor Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOF INDIA&ANR Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvoc'ate Mr.SanjayPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlmSwain,Ms.ICKaumudiKiran Advocatesfor LAC/UOI ^.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh Mr.BankeyB.hariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomeiK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILQAUR 0/ ORDEP

12.01.2012 £M^l.No.7S2/2nT?fif Order <ypogmphicalcorrectionin Oideiof6 January,2012. counselappearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice Page 1 V •v_ ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typogiaphicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'*^ Januaiy, 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 counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof.. JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb AApp.No.1195/2008 GAUR) JUDGE Page 2

% + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 741/2010 RAJINDER SINGH & ORS Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 Appellant Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, .29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR/JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR