Bhim Singh v. U.O.I & Anr

ORDER

06.0L2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008.titled as 'Ranbir Sharma V5. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb (S^O^Tgau]^ JUDGE Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. •Vv r/ ..'V •t IN THE HIGH COURT OF: DELHI AT Nl'.W DELHI % Reserved on: November IS, 20JI (GRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008.(VILLAGEpBHARTHAL RANBJRSHARMA Appellant Tlirough: Mi'.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaaii,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan,Mr.R;.S.Verma,Mi\.TitinTewathia;Advocates Mr.AnandYadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Ad^ ocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate 4^: Mr.S.K.Routand Mr;B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. ' Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh ^''adav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat. Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya,Advocate Mr.Sandeep ;Thakhur.Advocate Mr.AtuI lYipathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Raulela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled b} UOI) versus UNION OF INJDIA & ANR. Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar;Sen/orAd\-ocatewith Mr.Saajay Pathak, Mr.Moh.itrao.Tadha\- incl xVl.s.Nax'lin'Swain, Ms.K.KauniudiKiran,Adyoiates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verina, Ms.lBeenashawSorii. Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr Si.K.Sethi,Mr.PaAvanMathur, Mr.KunaJ Sharma, Advocatefor pDA t..\.APP.4i2/2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections).LA.AFP.452/2008-LA.APP.453/2008;LA.API\688/2008& CM.No.'-990/20]o'(Cross-ObjecUons); LA.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.701/2008&: CMNo.510/2009 (Cross-Otjp.ction;;); ]... APP.7A8/2008; LA;APP.770/2008; LA.'App. a co.-.ncclGdAppnalsof VillaBfi.Bharl(i;.il' ,i a.Aod. No./W70l(j s. roniiGCi.edAppc;.al.sofVillaijoBijwasjn .1 A-.App. l:l.1.V?n.10&tonnflacidAppealsofViilaijc:l-ochanpu.r' PaBf 1 of 7.9 -i, LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.772/2008 LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.783/2008; CM.No.61.V2,009 (Cross-Objections);' CM.No.l79^ (C^ss-ObJ^ti ons); LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP. 844/200 8; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; CM.No.709/2009 LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008 LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.<)40/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.7.8472008: LA.APp.785/2008: LAA£E.7»S/a00^-^ Cross<5^jectioiis)r^,APP!799/2008& CM.No.931/200 .APP.805/2008rEMPFTO-/200^rt:70OT:Sl 3/2008 (S (Cros,s-Objactions); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/200 LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.8 ^2/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.820/2008 LA.APP.833/2008 CM.No.779/201 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.951/2008 LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008 LA.APP.975/2008 CM.No.572/2009 & (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-Objections) LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP. 1046/2008 l.,A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7S 51/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Ob|ections); 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-Objcctions);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No. 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. I7259/2008(Cross-Objection3); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objection,s); J...A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & 'CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086,/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093,/2008; A.APP.]094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objcctions);LA:APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831 /2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1113/20()8 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; [A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & ,CM.N(i.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 & CM.N','.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP.l 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.ri40/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,^2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1159/2008; LA.APP. 116172008; LA.APP. 1166/2008 LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008 LA.APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP. 1171/2008; LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA.APP. 1173/2008 LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.l 181/2008 LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP.! 186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 i.A.App. No. 3195/7.008 St connncted Appeal.s of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. ?.94/2010 & connecte;d Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App.No. 1.1.1/2010 & connccteci Appeals of Village Pochanour' ('; •7^ % (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 11'n/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203^2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.124i/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objecticins); LA.APP.12'f3/2008; 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.128l/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.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (C^ross-Objcctions); LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; ].,A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.45 9/2009; 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. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 " LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; 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.13/2dll; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP.l 138/2008; l.A.APP.l,177/2008; LA.APP,1201/2008; LA.APP.23 :/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 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.AiPP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 (Relatingto NotificationNo! F.i0.(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the liand Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No, 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal.Delhi) I ' . • (GRID-B) . . • Reserved on: December 08. 2011 . • Pronounced on: January 06. 20J2 t ' ' • • . LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE.-BIJWASAN). DIWBNDBRKUMAR . ; •....•. Appellant Through: I.Mr.R.S.Tomar,IVIr.VirendraSingh iy\.App. No 1195/2008 & connected Appealsof Village Bharthali lA.App.No. 294/2010& conneclndAppealsofVillageRijwasan ' LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu.' Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routra}/,Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75,76) versus UOl & ANR LA.A.PP LA.APP. lA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.AP'P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. r.A.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 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Podclar,Senior Advocate with 'Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.NavIin Swain, Advocates for UOI/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.APP. LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 283/2010 . LA.APP. LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.A,PP. LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 351/2010' LA.APP. LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 406/2010 • LA.y\PP, LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 80/20,10 LA.APP. C.M.No.964/2011(Cross-object 49/2010 54/2010 59/2010 223/2010' 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 ^^52/2010 357/2010 760/2010 ^62/2010 407/2010 S88/2010 725/2010 731/2010 764/2010 364/2010 ')9/2010 icms) 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 408/201.0 722,/2010 72672010

732./2010 828/2010 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. & (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,•VillageBijAvasan,Delhi) AND IA,.App..No. IIO-S/^OOS&,connectndAppealsofVillagn Bharthal l.\App,No. 29'}//010&connectedAppnalsof VillageBijwasan !y<-J\pp.lMo.Uj/.2()10& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' . . • • • . I <ige'i of 29 (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 20!2 J.A.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANP.UR) I SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants iMr.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) iMr.S:B.Kumar, Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.N6:61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RaJeshYada^',Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.NavIinSwain. Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal •Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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 120/201] 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 525/2011 554/2011 i-A-.App.No. 1195/Z008&conneclcdAppealsofVillaBeBharlhal W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan l-A.App No 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 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. LA.APP. . 155/2010 . 209/2010 . 249/2010 . 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 597/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/20n-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 429/201 ] 522/2011 535/2011 % (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePoch.anpur,'Delhi)" CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012

¶1Since the groundson which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of" appeals are identical, thcrelorewith the consentof learned counsel ior the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals,'these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96~L&.B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bliarthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-IJ' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section'4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertammg to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., y\ward No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@?13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarkel value oftheir acquired •l-A.App. No. 1195/2008&connecledAppoals.ofVillageBharthal. I.A./^pp.Mo. M'V2010&conncctedAppealsof VillagGBijwasan i./"-.App.No. ni/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillaeePochanpiir ' . . Pa8e6of.29 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, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement ol" 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 and Ors,, (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa andAm\,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and'Ors vs. 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 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaigaon, • . 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs w. Union ofIndia Anr., \ 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of 'Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakasws. State of Pimjah '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCAIJ'-i 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; •W.P.((') No. 4143/2003' titled as Smt. Indu Khorana Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SC'C 714; Thakarsihhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, l.A./\pp.No. ne.V^OOS fi connocted Appeals of village Sharthai i.A.App. No. 7.94/2010 &• connecled Appeal.';of Village Bijwasan ;A.A,pp. No 1J1/20.10& connected Appealsof VillagePochanpur ' PaRe7of29 ' f Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175; RisaiSingh & Ors. Fs. UnionofIndia& Am., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs.Union ofIndia and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769; Genera!Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPateVand Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyamma!and Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr.,,AlK 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State:,ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; - KapilMehra (Major General) &• Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20]1) DLI j61; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh ra. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Ann, decided on 24.04.2008; Om ^ Prakash(dead)by LRsandOrs ra. UnionofIndia,(2004)10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union ofJndia, (1997) !1 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on.

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

(170)DLT371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguingcounsel'forthe appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be • first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be ^ adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near future alone.

¶7ll was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village I3iijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the tGI Airport,New Delhi App. No. 1195/2003&connectedAppealsofVillageBhariha! • •App. No. 29tn010Ik connocledAppealsofVillaBeUljwasan iVN.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ ' LA I A f and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road .100 meters wide startingfrom NH-S;from Shiv Mmii towardsDwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side^ where IGI Air|X)rtis located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Faiiii Houses are located on the land of VillagesBhaithal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first actiuiredfor 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 developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the westernside of VillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the ales sizraslm2i-pto highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc 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 thie light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be a^uicultural in spite of Notificationof 16'^ October, ^QOO vide which land use of the three ^ villages in question was changed from -agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entire Land ofA.^illageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24^' October,1994. : " 9. It was argued with much!vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrbngly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lAApp. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhal !AApp..No.294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagGBijwasan I..A.App.No. .i.u/20,i0&conneclodAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page9of23 i' - ^ I Redd,& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOffwer,Hyderabad&Ore, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 iiolding that the potential:of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingmview the developmentin tlie area over aperiodoftime and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not putthe land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthereis no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by iVtr.B.D.Shamia.learned counsel for the' appellantsupon the seven Sale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight lhat the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely bccause of the said variation, these sale exemplarscannot be 7^ thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued becauseof any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Oessaira. SlateofGoa . mdAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marlcetprice of the land which comes to ?57 .lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants arc the comparable'sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the "P®"^ minimumrates/circleratesfor detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous. •^11. Assessmentofmarketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by . Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe I& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of prc-determmedrates fixed by the Government-for allotmentof alternate plots n, the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand po,e"t.ahtyof the acqun-ed land, determinationof its market value is f I sought on the strength of sale' exemplars of A/illage Pochanpur and VillageSamallcliaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on ihe basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

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

23.J0.2002 being flmved in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No. 19012 of 2006. , (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) : b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyajfected'therates ofland in the areafor more than 75 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of (he letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme•Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar2010(3)SCC 661. Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining ihe valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin l>\.App.No. .119!j/2008&' connectGdAppealsof Villageliharthal • lA.App, No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageDijwasan LA.App. No. .1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur f case the average sale price is lower. Farther 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 npt by.averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered, while adjudicating upon compensationupon a certan land. I f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC • No.97A/2006to decide,the market value of the subject land while ignoring the]material which indicate that the marketvalue of the land is much higher than 15 lacper acre-in Block A and

1.3,36,000 in Block B in yiolation of the law laid down liy the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v\y. State of Eaiyana 2010(1). SCC 444. As a' consequence, the impugnedjudgment •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. ; s) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationof the MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land, use of Village Dhool Siras and. Bharthal was changed,and. these areas ceased to be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries of.Delhi State. The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential,' commercial and, other • permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the j appellantleadevidencemrespectofthe 74""'amendment of the Constitutionof India, w.e^f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was ainended and the area where the land is situated, was ' • deemeda municipalarea and the mumcipalCounsellor _ was elected from, 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 vj. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerpiefact thatthe developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing •.• purchaser wouldpayfor the.subject-land. '

i) Ignored the fact that\Respondent'No. ,2 had also IV\.App.No, 1195/2008& connGctedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 291/P.OlO& connectedAppealsofVillageBiiwasan : • LA.App.,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Pagel2of29 •37 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedlamI. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthe.possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of l>yvarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village DhoolSiras and. BharthaJ was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish ihe commercial ^ polentialityofthe saidland. In Sangunlhalav, Tahsildar

(LA), (2010)3see 661 it was heldthat thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas 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 accjuired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportionoj the landis beingconsidered,as house site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof beingput in betteruse as housesitesin ihe nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the tactual detailshave been provided with a. prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with tne co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsad^•anced on behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethatthe effectof !.A.App. No. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A.App.Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Dattatmy Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General) Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011 i DLT 361 and that Pre-Dctermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ot the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue 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 admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be trJcen as relevant'evidence foi deteiminationof 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 proiperty,proximityto the villageetc. are also lequiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value ofthe acquiredlands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon, the decisionsin JaiLa! vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62)^ DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar w. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase iji piice in a shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor siich shaip incieasc are explained by producingin evidence the seller lA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l:.A.App.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBliwasan ' lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur I' • . and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeofthe usua] prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay 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-DetcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Court!in SushiiKumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityotthe land is concerned,it was urged by ISlr.SanjayPoddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondent.s/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the - mnnmum indicativeprice oftlie agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, marlcet value of the•acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference;Court, as in Smhil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenliancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land Acqui,sitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enliancementby the RdercnceCourtwhiletalcingintoconsiderationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting % appreciation @10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. . 17. After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgmem,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe true marketvalue ofthe comparablelandis thepricepaid by willmgpurchaserto awilling lAApp. No. 1195/M08&connfictodAppealsof VillageBharthal AApp. No.-294,2010&connecledAppealsof VillageBIjwasan IA.App. No. ,1.l.l/;.oio&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanptjr , . h & seller and the best evidence is' the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of die 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 Haiyam & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village,which had been growing in size because of its commercial, induslrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation;

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

(lii) possibilityofobtainingwater and clectricsupplyfor occupants ofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutory•impedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin thevicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres; or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersof buildings,if builton the acquired land; and • I

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

¶181he potentialityofland for the puipose.ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. m/2010 & connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Pip 16 f29 /— I. J, \-r-Hi 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 relevant factors for determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the.exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be a groundto discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepieces of land were not available.

¶19Afoiesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom tlie decisionsreliedupon on behall of the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof ihe villages, which are similaily.situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future J^rospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well establishedproposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for. a particularpurpose. But, it is equally tiue that the burden of,provinginadccjuacyof compensation y awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(SujDra)can be refeired to with advantage, . Apex Courtin Valliyammdl(Supra),wdrilc takingnote ofihe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,ihospitals,etc., jiad held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent • observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnlaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserve attention, which are as under;- IA,App. No, 1195/2008& cannoctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal 1A.App, No, 291/2010&donnectcdAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A,App.No. 111/2010&conneciGdAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pip-17 's "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will he considered:^ Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandM>idtk, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of t-wo sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or 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 Pad! (Supra), which are as } ^follows:- "// is well settled that-genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona.fide sale transactionsproximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired, lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee a.nd 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 reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil ami Natural Gas CorporationLtd,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of la.ndfor developmentin the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices' would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutanysuddenspurts orjumps: lA.App. No. ].195/?.008& connccladAppfialsofVillage Bharthal ' ' i.A.App. No. 2.94/2010& connoctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan lA.App. No. lU/20iaS(connectedAppealsof VillagePochar,pur Pagel8of29 On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, M>here 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 somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties: On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a nominal rate of 1%) or 2%) per annum. There is .thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be ^ onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5%> 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 reasonsfor applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. Normally, recourseis taken to the mode of determiningthe market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneoussale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonably safe yvhere the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions>precedes 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 to a sale or LA.App. No. 11.95/2008& connRctedAppealsofViilageBhartha! . ' • '.A.Apo.No. 294/2010& connnctfldAppealsofVillageBijwa.san l-A.App'.No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppeals6fVillagePochanpur! ' jg V acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurts inpricesaffectingthe veiystandard ofincrease. " • ^

¶24This Court-is mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Haiymm StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for tlie acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "IVhendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, ; .for forming of a residential layout, courts have iji, sometimes felt that determination of iheir value with . referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village BijAvasan 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.,Radhj S^-vamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre. =.*^-26. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (.IIx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)v^'hich are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand RadhaSwamiSatsang, Beas mrespectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof . • in questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds lAApp. No, 1395/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' LA.App. ,Mo. 294/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan I.A.APP. Mo. ,Ul/20]0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 kics 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 dependentupojithe natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Bx.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeofthese agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had t]ie purcliaser/vendeeofthe aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreed to pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swaini 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. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siiigh w. Union of India, decided on !

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

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were beingused foj-agi iculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing l-A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal' ' ' ' . I.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page2j>of29 A market price of the land m 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 lix.PW-1/10) have, been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11) rehed upon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantprice of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 2?"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-l/l 1) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (I'ix.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 representativeprice foi" the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice ofsimilarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is required to be consideredas to whetheradoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Prc-DcterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question. , '

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands . highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. R Land Acquisition Officer Ffyderahad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 3(^5 are as under:- "12. lioweyer, in either of the said cases whether it be the . ' determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialityM'ith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin Ihe neighborhood IA.App. No. .1.195/2008& conneclfldAppcalsofVillage Bharthal " LA.App. !Mo. 294/2010& connGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App.No. .1.11/2010&connectedAppeal.sofVillagePochanpur orM'hetheritbe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith 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, relied'upon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice M'hich theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminary.notificationunder Section "^0) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevantdate of publicationunderSectionAfl)ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to M'hich it wasput and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its ) ' buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto ^ be made available in that regard. Asmall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th ofthe market value of the land foimd out accordingto its actual user .since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is'no • evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof ' the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " •

¶31In view of the dilficultiesin adoptionof]ate of land charged by • the DDA alteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Ch'and . (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of JA.App. No.,119;;/M08&conncctodAppealsof VlllaBc,-Bharthal I M.App, Na 29V2010&connnclodAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App, No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur \ the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA ratesfor allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsinquestion. J -i-. Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue 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 seniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the ^ ycai 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka l^hase-I and the instant Notincationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris morethan the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. j3. Aloresaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt . piogiessiveincreasemethod in assessmentof 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 aneighbouringland. What may be a leliablestandard,ifthe gap is ot only ofafew years,ma}/ becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is largej-. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka 1hase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value b}' providing appropriate i.A./\pp.No. ]l,<«/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ' LA.App. No. 2'M/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Hi escalationovei the marketvalueofthe nearb)' land ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted^as a cooidinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Smhil.Kumar (Supra),1find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value deteiminedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum.In this viewof .r ^ the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's mmimumprice ofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is leasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%o |:)er annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves lo be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland % pertaining to the Notification'in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants.becausethe acc]uiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be Luban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ol-the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto W.App. No. l].,9.';/2Ci08&connectedAppenisof VillageBharthal ' ' ' • iV\.App. IMo. .^91/2010&, connGctodAppealsofVillageBljwasan ' lAApp. No. 111/2010&connectodAppealsofVillageI'ochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being , consideredas developedlands.!Theevidenceled is lacldngon the vital ispectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplar'soi Radha Swami Satsang,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethattliesale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from tire evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultuialuse. Had there been increasemprice due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhandson othersale instancesin the area Mn question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-l/ll)without leading any evidence to establishUiat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarso[Radha Swam, Satsang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(bx.PW-l/ll)are compai'ablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land wilh the sale instance'of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-I/H) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higlier compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid ^ sale m.stanccs. Therefore, in view of the aforcHcferred dictum ofthe ,:^Apex Court in Ha,yana State ^IndustrialDevelopmentCorpomtion (irS/DC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same NotificaLonin the light of the . minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that'therei.s agap between what JA.App. Il9y2008&cc,nnoctcdAppealsofVillas LA.APP. No, 111/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government's minimumagriculturalprice has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands inJai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushil Kumar(Supra)and I find, no reason to take a. differentview than the one which had been taken by 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 ajid Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question, l-indingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButI find that the aspectoi higherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityofthe IGl Airport,Indian Oil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and ,of Railway line passingthrough Village Bharthal amd there being a 100 meters vide I'oad starting from Nli-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part Iand Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityo! the acquiredlands has somehow missed the attentionof the ^ ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof this Court, on accountof aloiesaidlocationaladvantages^,the acquiredlands in question,certainly • assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhase-L What peisuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increa:ieover arid above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the l.A.App. No. .1195/2008& connnctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal lA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijvyasan IA,App. No.-1.1.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur' Pago 27 of 29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza ,, NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the uwnediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable tosuch buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringtlie fact that it would be veiy difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact tliat exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair cotnpensation.it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of' the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof Village I'ochanpurare treated at . par with then-counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bhardial and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Smhil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto gram 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby theReferenceCourtin :, ,these matters on account of tlie aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question. ^ 40. Accordingly,these appeals ai-e partly allowed to the extern of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bhaithaland Village iywasait.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochatipurat par with the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof lAApp.No. .1..11/20.10&ccnneaodApponksofViliPochanZ Page 2S of 29 S3 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@^16,50,000/-per^^^^Srthe Category'A' land 'and @?14;69,600/-per bjgl^forthe Catef^^'y'B' lands in question. ' >1- \

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported ia Simdej' vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, lor whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts. I 42. 1he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof m the aloresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eithei-side withthe Registrar General of this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb lAApp. No. 1195/2008&connocledAppealsofVillagGBharthal A.App. |\Jo. 29^/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan i.A^pp. No. 111/2010&connectedApp^ealsofVillagePochanpur (SUNIL GAUR) , JUDGE /Jo - "'Is'•'"jn I /' pAj; •)" f ^ '• ' ' r-IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SI-IARMA Appellant Through: Mi-.B.S.Maan,Mi-.AmitMaan, MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates , Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.jSIegi.andMr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Raiitela, (Advocates for respondent m appeals filed by 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, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc, Mi-.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kauniudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Setlii, Ms. Amita Singh, • Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharaia and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. •CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR -T" ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice • LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 V' oftlie application.Advancecopyofthis appiicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointedout by the respondentin the decision of 6'" January. 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the' aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha'. whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants:Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto "perbigha'in paragraph no:.40 of LA.App,No: 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary con-ectionsbe Gm-iedoutforthwith. In vjewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof U-App.No.1195/200y Page 2 JANUARY 12, 2012 picb t JUDG,E

* % + % 2S IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 799/2008 BHIM SINGH Through: Reserved on: November W , 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, 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.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Dcepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawai, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Aclvocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, ]\^r.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur,Mr.KunalSharma,Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR