Daleep Singh Decd. Thr. Lr'S v. Uoi& Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008,titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. IL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Cj LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSIIARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,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.]^egiandIN/h-.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mi-,H.S.Rautela,(Advocatestor respondentinappealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma^Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSirigli, Mi-.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.0L2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correctiom). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 [o ofthe application.Adyancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aloresaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per biglia', whcrsas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by lean^ed counselappearingfor die appellants:Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'inparagraph no: 40 of LA.App.No: 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be canied out forthwith. In viewof the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 ]3kb LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2 % w TOE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November IS, 2011 Fronoimced on: January 06, 20]2 (GRID-A) . LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHAMTHAL) HANBIR SHAmA • 'rhrough: Appellant Mr.B.'S.Maan, Mr.y\mit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smila Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Toraar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raglnivinder Godara, Advocate Mr.NiS.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and l\4r.B.K,Routray, Mr.M.Azam y\nsari. Advocates, Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr-Rtijesh Yadav. Mr.]3eepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosia and Mi-.]3han.anjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, A dvocate Mr.I.S.JDahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakiiur; Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate, Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.i'LS.Raulela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respojidcnts T'hrough: Mr.SanjayPoddav,SeniorAdA'ocatewitu Mr.SaajLry Pathak, Mr.lVloh.itrac. ,.iadha'v and Ms.Naviin Svv'ain, Ms .K.Kaiiiniidi •Kiran. Advocates for L AC/lJOl Mr.AJay Veriria, Ms.Becnashaw Sorii. Mr.Mukcsh . KumEir,Mr S,K.Sedii, Mr.Pav/an Matliur, Mr.Kuna] Sharma, Advocate for [)DA !.A.APP.412/2008 & CM.No,4096/2008 ('Cross-Objections). l'..'\.A.PP..'452/2008; LA.APP.453/2008;LA.API\688/2()08-Hi, CM.No.5990/20]0(Cross-Objedions); i.A.APP.697/2008 & CM.No.433/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.701/2008 & CMNo.510/2009 (Cross-Objectioiis): L APP-768/200R; LA.APP.770/2008; l^ici, nyij/riOO-B& connccted Apponlsof VillnEi'!I3h;inh;il !A..'\rjp,No. & connuri.ed Appt.-jl.sofVillaj^c;I3iiw;i;,jn IA.App. i;i & connr-aed Appealso! Viilajjc;l-othanpur Page 1.oi Z9 -1, 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.784/20()8; LA.APP.7S5/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.Nd.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.AP,P.799/2008 & ClVl.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.AP]^6/2008; LA.APP.813/2008& CM No.1795/2009 (C«)SS^Ol3jsctiDTts)^A./^^ & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections);(la.APP'.818/2008;)feA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; l.A.APP.829/2008; DOtPFXn]72008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; L.A.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM'^No.S19/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008 (CS-oss-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008; l.,A.APP. 1047/2008 ;LA.APP. 1048/2008& CN4.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. 1052/2008; 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 & Civl.No.752/2011• (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008&.CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008 &' CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Ohjections); LA.APP.l"060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008& CM.No.546/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008'(Cross-Objections); L,A.APP.1086.^2008 & CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);i.AAPB,1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Ol^jections);LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1109/2008;LA.APP.l110/2008 & CK4.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.]111/2008;LA.APP.l112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objections);lA.APP.l113.'2068 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l11.5/2008; LA.APP.l116/2008; LA.APP.l121/2008; [A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeclionsj; LA-APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections), LA.APP.1133/2008; LA.APP.l 135./200S& _CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1140/2008; LA.APP.1136/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008; LA.APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA.APP. 1173/2008; LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008; LA.yVPP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l 183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP.l 186/2008& CM.No.7013,/2009 1A,App. No. 3195/7.008 Si conncctoid Appeals of Village Bharchal l.A.App, No. Z91/Z010 connected Appeals of Village Bijv/assn • ' , . . ITV.App.No. .l.U/.'.OlO&connecteflAppealsof VillagePochaiiDur' ^ • Page2ol29 % \3 (Ci-oss^Objcctions);LA.APP.11.90/2008; I/V,APP.1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008; LA.APP.1193/2008;LA.APP.1194/2008;La'.APP.I195./2008;LA.APP.!197/2008; LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009fCross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.i210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008; LA.APP. 1212./2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.N6.6957/2009(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. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009: LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009 LA.APP. 140/2009 LA. APIM 62/2009 LA.APP: 197/2009 LA. APP.202/2009 (Cross-Objcctions' LA.AP]P.211/2009 LA.APP.224,/2009 (Cross-Obj ections) LA.Apk249/2009 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.203/2009; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA. APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245./2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA. APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009: LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; l,A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447.''2009; L.A.APP.480/2009; LA.A.PP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP,45/2010; LA.APP.1138/2008; LvV.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM,No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 L A. 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. 1176/2008 (.Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the I..and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/200p-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBliarthal,-Delhi) (GRID-B) . • •• • Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). •; ' . DliVHypERKUMAR ......Appellant ; Through: Mr.R.S.Tdmar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. iMo .1195/Z008& connected Appeals of Village Bharllial i.A.App.No. 7.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l.A.App No, llTj/ZOlO& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur Pago 3 of 29 l"! 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 UOl &, ANR Respondents Tlirough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for DOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • " filed by UOL 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. U/2010 • LA.API|.52/2010 LA.APP.53/2010 r.A.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APR 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010-f.A.APP:. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP; 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP, 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP: 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APPi 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APPj 750/2010 LA.APP.759/2010 LA.APPj 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP: 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP:75/2010& C.M.No.964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 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 • LAAPP. 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 L.A.APP, 407/2010 LA.APP, 408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP, 725,/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731,/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/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002f2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AN]) . • • • I.A.App, No. .Tl<J.')/-2'008& connGClRdAppeal.?ofVillagnBharthnI LA.App, No. 291//010&iconncictedAppRalspfViliagoBijwasan !.A.App, IM9, 1.13/20.10&'conneclodAppealsofVillage Pochanpur % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 20.11 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 J.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: 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 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.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,,and Ms.Navlin Swain.,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BcinkeyBihari Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for dda; LA.APP, LA.yVPP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ].A.APP. LA.Al'P. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 .395/2010 420/201-0

466./2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/201] 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' 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. 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 525/201 ] 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. L.'V.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 155/2010 . 209/2010 . 249/2010 . 261/2010 .305/2010 , 392/2010 . 397/2010 433/2010 57:7/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 . 156/2010 , 215/2010 ..250/2010 270/2010 30672010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429,/201] 522/2011 535/201 1 LA.APP l.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. No, U95/2008&conncclfidAppealsof VillageIBharthal LA.App. IMo, 2.94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App No 111/2.010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur. fc (Relating to Notification No. F.l()(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR %

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereiorewith the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoUficationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating - to geographically contiguous Viilages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedol b}' this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'l)warkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of NoUfication of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 oi the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricuhural land in one compact block conipiisingof thirteenRevenue Lstates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. Agriculturalland of the appellants herdin in the aforesaid thi'ee villages.stoodacquiredby 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 @^\232 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired l-A.App. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal LA.App. No, Z9i/?.oao&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. ni/7.010&connectedAppealsofVillafinPochanpur ; • ' ."age6of:'.9 i agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced corapensation @ ?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, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

5.- In 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 precedents 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 vs. State ofGoa and Ann,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors 5>s.. State ofHaryana and Am\,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors,, (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) -through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; I Rama Nand (since deceased) through L.Rs w. Union ofIndia Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State ofJIaryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab '& Ors., 201 1 (9) SCALH 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs.. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 sec 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 Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.IL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC'714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai ami ors vs. Executive Engineer, A.App. No, & connc!clpclAppeals of Viliagp.Shanhai -A.App. Wo. ?.54/2010 & conncctcd Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No "J1/2010& conncictcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' • • Page 7of29 Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15\ RisalSingh& Ors, Vs, UnionofIndia& Ann, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChmtdvs. Union of India and Am\, (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Natural Gds Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValiiyammaiandAm vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., 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: K^. Union of India ^ Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om • Prakash(dead)by LRs and Ors vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpar& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) .] 1 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on .iO.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of .India, Gecidedon 07.06.2011;and EhideRam ra. UnionofIndia, 2010 (17())DLT371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that-.thelocationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be in-st understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the nearliiturealone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel lor appellantslhat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway'line ofVillage Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Deihi yv.App.No. 1135/2003&conneclndAppealsofVillageBhariha! IV\ App. IMo. 2<M/Z010&connoctGdAppojalsofVillageBIjwasan !A.App.No. 111/2010&conneclndAppGalsofVillagePochanpur n and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II 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 VillageBharthalwas 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 lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 ibr development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the developmejit of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. -Attentionwas drawnto the a/cs sizrastmnpto highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has 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 entire land of VillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notiiicationof24^' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aioresaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. IA.App, No. il95/:i008&connoctRdAppealsofVillage Bharthal !.A App.,No,294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillaBG Bijv^asan LA.App. No. in/;!0l0&conncclodAppealsof VillagePochanpur . Page9of Z3 Reddr& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later •decisionin Udho Dms ra. StateofHaryana& Ors.,•2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged ; , l<eepingin view the developmentin the area over aperiodof time and the same cannot be limited'to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put tjie land to any use, it would not meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Shanna,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highliglit that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand a,s per settledlegal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaiuMolu Bessaivs. StateofGoa mdAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe market price of the land which comes to ?5? iacs per acreand since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparablesale instances, therefore,'reliance placed by the ReferenqcCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketv^ucofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentofmarketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedeoimselfor the appellantson the basisofthe I,& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre- • determined rates 'fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate piots i" me year 2000^2001.tCeepmg in view the location,situationand poiontiahtyot the acquired land, determinationof its market value is , lAApp. N". 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillapoBhar!hal • ' IA'ap^p'1?5ir??Joa Bijwa.san - PP Nt.lij/,.C10a connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur , ' Page XO of 29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the . • developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre- •Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited of,LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the acknowledge/nenton the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.]0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred-to in cross-examinationof appellant dated : 7./.2007) b)•Does not account for the fact that ):he 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 M?as issued. c) \Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated 11-9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the la.w laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar.2010(3)see 661. ' . d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per ,establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'blei!)uprem.eCourt in the recent case of Chmda Fakira Patil versus Special Land . AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475'of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin I^.App, No, .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageliharlhal Lflj^pp.(\id, ?94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageIJijwasan l|,App.No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 N0.97A/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 113,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v.y. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •re/used to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Mimicipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal ^vas changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan, and Notifications of Government for 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 respectofthe 74"' 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, was ;deemed a 'municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, 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 v^. Union of India and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin. tM area has a direct effect on the price t.ha:i a willing purchaser woiddpay for, the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also I.A.App. No.1195/2008 & connccied Appeal.^of Village i3harthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwa.san LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectfid'Appealsof VillagePochanpur 2^3 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is w^hollyunderdeveloped,land. j) The valuation of the subject land is even loyver than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k), Does not take into accountthe possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land M>as acquiredfor development purposes of JJ^yvarka Phase II. It is reiterated tha.t the land use of VillageDhool 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 comm.ercial potentiality of thesaid land. In Sa.nguntha.lav. Ta.hsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe land has got buildingpotentialityto 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 acciuired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential qua.rters.As a portion oj the land is beingconsidered,as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of , beingput in betteruse as hous&sites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsofthis appeal be treated at par.with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof !.A./\pp.Mo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App. (Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePocha.npur urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapM Mekra (Major General) ,1 Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are 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 ot the acquired lands. 'I'hus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51 Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence ior 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 villageere. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market'Valueof the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai La! vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 '(62) DRJ 227, Saipal& Ors vs. Union of^ India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Am\.,

(z009) 15 SCC 769; LA. A.PP. No.656/2008titled as Sushii Kumar w. Union ofIndia, decided on 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a shortperiod cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/zooa&connectedAppealsofVillageBhart.hal LA.App. [Mo. 294/2010&'connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/?.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' I'age14 of 23 and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay such ahigherpay as reflectedin the sale mstance 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-DetcrmmedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which,has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis Court in SushilKumar (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 factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @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 thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RelerenccCourt:whiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparablelandis the pricepaid by M'illingpurchaserto awilling Il.fApp. No. 11!)V.?.008&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharth:-)! Ui-.App,No. 294/2010&connecledAppealsof VillageBijwa.san IA.App. No. 1.11/2010a connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur '.T' - seller and the best evideiiGe-is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land,,what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho, Dass vs. State of Haryana <& • O/x, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words "(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, I religious or any other kind, of importance or because ; ofits explosive population;

(ii) the suitability of the acquired landfor putting up the ! buildings, be they residential, commercial or \ industrial, as the case may be; \ ' ' ' i'

(iij) possibility of obtaining water and electric supplyfor ' occupantsofbuildingsto beputup on thatland;

(iv) absence ofstatutory impedimentsor the likefor using the acqtiired landfor buildingpurpose; fvj existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity ofthe acquired, land; ; (vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the li.ke in the-surrounding areas of the acquired land which m.ay become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land ; itself being in dem.and for building purposes, to i specify afew. " i

¶18The potentialityof land for the puiposc of developmentas also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said • purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for .1A.App. No. 1.193/7.008& connecled Appeals of Village Bharlhal l.A.App,Mo. 7.94/2010 & conncctHd Appeals of Village BIjwasan . LA.App. No. 111/2010.& cdnnecladAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page16of29 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 reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of 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.

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

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behall of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialit> of the villages, vv^hich are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as I regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the ground of distancebetween similarlysituated lands and the-acquired land.

¶20li is a well established proposition of law that the burden of pj-oving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particular purpose. 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, zl. Apex Court in Valliyamma! (Supra),while takingnote of ihe 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 im.proper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- 1A,App. i\'o. n,S5/200S& coririGCi;edAppealsofVillage Qharlhal IA.App, No. ZfM/SOlO& conriGctCidAppealsofVillagRBijwasari lA.App. No. l'a,/201p&conneciGcl Appealsof VillageI'ochanpur .Pagel7of29 "The legal position is that even M'here there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where hoM'ever 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 two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-vahiation 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 Pati! (Supra), which are as , follows;- ,j • "It is well settled that genuine and. bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide 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 ami Natiiral Gas Corporation Ltd,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the d.em.andfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and .grad.ual,without any sudden spurts orjumps. lA.App. rOo. 1195/2008 & connccted Appsals of VillageBharlliai i.A.App. No.?.9'1/2010& connocted Appeals of VillageBijwasan l-A-App. l\lo. 111/2010& connccladAppealsofVillajjGPochanpur On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the. demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or 'jnore 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 Mrhan/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 1-5% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be 'onlyaround half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the \ . nineties, to be adopted in the 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 increase to be applied would depend upon 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 contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a, neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardif 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 tcj a sale 'or I.A.App. No. 1195/2008|&connficledAppaalsofVillage Bhartha! . ' lA.Apo, No. 294/2010& connnctedAppealsofVillageEijwasan . ' ' • .LA.App. No. in/.?.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpui' ' i > acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurts inprices affectingtheverystandard of increase. "

¶24This Court-ismindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Hmyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC) (Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.What was said by the Apex CourtinHSIDC (Supra) is as under:- 'When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different sitiiationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for fi)rm.ing oj a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided « uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe aM>ardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around dcquiied iand 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., Radha SwamiSatsang,Beas had puichased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacsperacre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-lMto Ex.PW-l/l0) Avhich are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds l-A.App. No. 1.195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 2!;<V20.108. connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan l-A.App. No. .I.U/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePocha.npur ' P 20 f29' .(Ex.PW-l/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 sam.e marketprice. It was dependentuponthe natureand situcitionof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages,attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbetreatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pocharipurvide 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 examinedby the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom, 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 ofIndia, decided on 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 Mamui-purwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe h'eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. ^7, In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were beingused for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing I.A,App. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillagG Bharthal ; LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan ' t.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur I C.L OT § 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 (]:x.PW-l/4 to Iix.PW-1/10) 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,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 including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question,

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P, Ram Reddy and Ors. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., ]995 (2) SCC 305 are as undcr:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market vahie of the accpured land with buildingpotentiality MuXh reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a yvell developedlayoutin the neighborhood IA.App. No.1195/2008 & connocted Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.App. No.ZSA/.IOlO& connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA.App. No. .1.11/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir Pap^e 22 of 29 k t! or M'hether$ he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land, with buildingpotentiality with reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes 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 publication of the preliminary notificationunder Section ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched, by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, . then what couldbe done is tofi.nd out the marketvalue of • the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto th^ actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentiality arises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land, indicating that there was no immediate deinand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofrate ofland charged by the DDAiafteracquiringthe agricultiirallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Charnl (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment 1atcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chand (Supra),a coordinateBench 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. Mo.,lT9!i/2008& connnctcdAppealsofVillafieBharthal i-A.App. No. P91//010&conncclodAppealsofVillage Bijwasan , LA.App. No. 11]/20.1.0&cbnnHCledAppealsofVillagePochanpur s p i the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, 1 find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the market value of the acquiredagriculturallands in question. ^0 J jL. Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objcctorthat even if the escalation at the compounded rate 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-I and the instajit Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,still the price fixed by the Land 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 reliablestandard,if the gap is of only of a few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the insta.ntcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate U'\.App. No. j19!)/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& conncctcdAppnalsofVillage Bijwasan i-A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 24 of 29 m cscajationoverthe marketvalue ofthe nearb}'land of the 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 Sushil Kumar (Supra), 1 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 Sushil /fwwmr (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%) per annum.In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentarc dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's mminium,price of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to v/hetherthe escalationof 12%o per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from, the date offixationofthe m,inimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentvv.e.f 1'' April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or , not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland , pertaining to the Notiiication in question has been assailed bv the 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 in question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ol-the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto I'A.App.i\'o. : 1.95/2008& connectGdAppealsofVillagp Bliarth;)i lA.App, No. 294/2010&, coniiGcindAppealsofVillageBiiwasan l,A.App. No. ll..:/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur f presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands ni question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasempricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired, lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area ^ mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/ll) cannot'be treated to be sufficient giound to giant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of-the ^ Haryana State IndimrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price tixed by the Governmentfor the agricultural'land in Delhi, which generally fectoi-s in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between whsit ^A.App. NO. 1195/2008&connocu^d,Appealsof • AApp, No. 294/20.10&connccfGdAppaair-of VillageBijwasan I'^ app. No. l.a/20.10&connactRdAppeal'sof VillagePochanDu,' Page 26 of 2.9 t ' would!be expected 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 Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I fmd no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by I coordinate Bench 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 Court 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. iMiiding 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 sideto DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Refererice Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume'higher building potentialitybeing in vicinity of Dv/aricaPhase-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 buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the LA.App, No, .1,1.95/2008& conpectRd Appeals of Village; Bharthal LA.App. No, 294/2010&! connflcledAppnalsofVjllagGBIjVi/asan I.A.App. No; 1,11/2010&. connectedAppeal,";ofVillagePochanpur # sr settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in NaiisherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "Whren once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibihiyof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increaseinpriceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea ; . . definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesof(he instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem witli equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acqun-ed lands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat tlie acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bhaitlial and VillageBijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in SmhU Xumar(Supra),1am inclinedto gi'am 10%increaseover and abovethe « marketvalueoftlie acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotenlialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto VillageBharthaland Village •. Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith • appellantsofVillageBhaithaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof connectedAppguIsofVmaeeBharthal A.App. No. 23'],,>010a connecledAppealsof VillageBijwasan • .A,App.No. .T.I..1/20K)&connoctedAppeal.^ofVillagePochanpur za the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthese threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perj^Jhiforthe Cmcgoiy-A-land and @?14,69.600/-per bl$?forthe Category'b' lands in question. Vo--

¶41On the aloresaid enhancement in the compensation awarded,, staiulorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted;exceptfor the periodwhere there is adelay in filingthe appeal, lor which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hcse appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in th.e aloresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General ol this Court, to the concerned'ReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb lA-App. No. 1195/2008& connGclodAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp. No. 294/2010&connccledAppealsofVillageBijwasan 1A.App. No. 111/20.10&coijncctcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE r,.,.;-. V' '-1'"- (' - • ( ("I / !-,•'! I' I ."ago 29 of 29

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 + LA.APP. 818/2008 DALEEP SINGH DECD. THR. LR'S Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Venna, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, 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.Panlcaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav,Mr.DeepalcKhosla, Mr.Samit Khosia and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates _ Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakliur, 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.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathak, Mr.MoiiitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI 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