Bhoop Singh & Ors v. U.O.I & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India &Anr.'. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb 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. f IN THE HIGH CO OF DELPH AT NEV' DELH II (1 • Resetied on: !/oveniher 1 , 20]1 Li'1c?/i1cc Q.L!?L/ Q. 91 • (GRJ1)-A) LA.APP 1195/2008 G .E-II3HARTHAL) RANBIR SHARJ\4A Appe11ait. I. hrough: Mr,B.SLMaan Mr.Amit Maari, Mr.Jai Prakash,.Ms.Smita Maan, VIr.R.SATernia, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Ani.nd Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Roitas, Advocate. Mr. Ra4huvi ii 'icr (Jodara, Advocate • Mr.N.S'.Negi and Mr,H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr. S ..1.Rout and I\r.B .1K. Routray, Mr.M .A.z.arn Ansari. Advoctcs. Nlr.Pajikai Vivei:, Ad\.'ocale Mr.Rajsh YadavMr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.SamitKhosla and MrDhari.anjay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.HS . RaueIa, Advocate Mr.I.S..i)ahiya. Advocate 1\4r.Sanlcep Thakhur. Advocate v1r.Atu! Iripathi, /\dvocate, rvlr.N.S..Negi and MrAI.S.I.aiiie1a, (i\dvocates Ii r respon4en in appeals filed by, U01.) versus (JINION 01 INDIA & AN lcso dc no I hj cu&h Mi San &v ]3 d

Pathak Mr 1\'iuhiti a idh 'i I

1\4s,K J aun.i ud kran. Advocates for j Ao..Ju1 Mr.Aj a Veria, R4s ,Becnashaw Son i. IVIr, NI ukesh 1<' umi Mr K 'c. tip \'h -'a vin Mathi u I'vI K ni • . Sharma Advocnn; 101 Dl.)/\ • . A.APP.4 1.2/2008 &.. CM.N..40/2ooS Cross-•Objcctions. L.\.APP.b2/200 t .A.AI 'P.69 7/2008 &. (/M.N.433/2uO9 C.ross-•Ohjtions): ..A.A I P.79 I • . • CR1. No.51 0/2009 (Cros-O I cth)ns: I, V API' 7680 L,. APP .770/2008:, I.A.Ap. No, connected Appeals of viiago Bha!hel i'..'\i)o. No. 294/2.01w N connected AppO.]Is ot Villa',t, A.App. No ........)0iQ & connewnnj AppeaN of Vidago Fo0tanptin P.e 1. o .O . S LA.APP.771 /2008 & CM.o.425/20()9: (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.772/2008; iA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (CrbssObjections); LA.APP.774/2008 & .CM.No.61 I /2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; IL:A.AP11.777/2008; LA.A.PP.782/2008 ,& . CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); LA.APP.783/2008 LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LAI.APP.798,F2008 & CM:No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.799/2008 = ) IQJI2009 (Cross- • . • is ; . . - 08; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; i\ L.APP.8 • 29/2008; LA.APP]830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008 LA.APP45/2OO8: LA.APP.873/2008 . & CM.No779/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.92/2008 & CM.N6.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.899/2008.; LAAPP.O1/2OO8; L2%APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.70912009 (Cross-Qbections); , 1.AAPP.959/2OO8; LA.APP.973/2008;. 1,A.APP.974/2008 & CMJ'1o.5 19/2009 (Cross-Qbjections); LAAPP975i2008;, LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.78/2()08; 1.A.APP.986i'2008 & CM.No.572!2009, (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.93/2008;LA.APP 1 0 29/2008& CM.No.1 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP. 103 1/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); l..AAPP; 1032/2008 & CMt1lo.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); Li-\.APP. 1046/2008;

1.A.APP.. I 047/2008;LA.APP. 1048/2008& CM.No.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 049i'2008 & CM.No.420;2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 050/2008; LA.APP. 1 051/2008 & CM.No. 1 7262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.N.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM .No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. ]055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & CM.No.752/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & (:'M.No. 1 7259/2008(Cross-Ohjeetions); LA.APP. I 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);

1...A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1 081/2003 & CM:No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 084/2008& CM.N9. 1 7302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 06/200% & C.No.2448/2008 (CrossiObjections): LA.APP. I 087/2008& CM.No.61 9 M /2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.APP. 1.094/2008; LA.AP.P. I 095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441 /2009 (Cross-Objections):J..A:APP. 11 08/008 & CM.No3 839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 109/2008: 1,A.APP.1 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); IA.APP.1 111/2008; i.,A,APP.1 1 121200$ & CM.....3831/2009 (Cioss-Ob.ections); LA APP. Ii 13/2008 & CM.No.3826Y2009 (( oss-Objcctions) LA APP ii ' 'OOS '\ APP lii 6/2008 1 A APP 1121 '2008 LA.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP. 1129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeci.ions); .A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 & CM No.566/2009 (Cross-ObcUons; LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA,APP. 1135/2008 & CMNo.7442/2.009 (Cross-Objeclions); LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.NQ.17283/2008 (Cross-Cibjeëtions); LA.APP.J. 140/2008; LA.APP. 1 l36/2008; LA.APP. 157/2008;. LA.APP. 1158/2008 & CM.No.7774!2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 159/2008; LA.APP. 1161/2008; L.A.APP. II 66/2008; LA.APP. 1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Ci-oss-Objections): LA.APP. 11 68/200; LA.APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP. 1] 71/2008; LA.APP. 1172/2008; LA.A.PP. 117.3/2008;

1.A.APP.1 175/2008; LA.APP.l178/2008; L.A. APP.1 179/2008; LA..APP. 1181/2008; A.APP.I l 82/2008; LA.APP 11 83/2008& CM.No.6933 12009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 184/2008; LA.APP.1 l85!2008; . ...A.APP. Ii 86/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 IA.App. No, :1195/2008 & conr.ected Appeals of Village h1rthal . . . . . LA Ape. No. 29/1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bi wasan . . I.A.App. No. 113 .12010 & connected Appea!s of Village P chanour . Page 2 or 29 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; 1..A.APP. 1192/2008; LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 194/2008; LA..APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; LA.APP. I 198/2008& CM.N.6935/2009(Cross-Objctions); LA.APP. 1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 120312008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP.121 1/2008; LA.APP. 1212/2Q08; LA.APP. 121 3/2008; LA.APP.122312008; LA.APP. 122512008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1241 /2008& CM.No.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008; [AAPP. 1275/2008; LA.APP.276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 281/2008; LA..APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008; LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP 33/2009; LA.APP37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.o.746i'201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.AP?.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.7412009; LA.APP.79/2009;. LA.A.PP.9/2009 & . CM.No.953/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA,APP. 12 1/2009; LA.APP.1 35/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. I 38/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009; I A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 14512009; LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.187/2009. ...LA.APP.190/2009; LA.APP.191/2009; LA.APR 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. I 99/2009; LA.APP.20 I /2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APF. 203/2009; 1,A.APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (('ross-Objc'ctions); LA.APP. 10/2009 & .CM.No.970/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.21 1/2.009 . 1,A.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223112009; LA.APP.224/2009; L.A.APP.22712009; LA.&PP.230/2009 & CM.No.720612009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP 241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA,APP.24612009; 1A.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; L.A.APP.295/2009; I..A.APP.305/2009; i.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.43712009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.45812009; 11A.APP.459/2009; LA.APP466/2009; . LA.APP,480/2009;LA.APP.481/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; . LA.APP.490/2009; . LA.APP.491/2009; LA:AP.P.493/2009; 1,A.APP.494/2009; LA.APP495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LAAPP,506/200.9; I A APP 07/2009, LAAPPi508/2009 L' PP &09/2009 I APP 510'2009 1,A.APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP]5 12/2009; LA.APP.5 13,'200..LA.APP.567/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.AP. 15/2010; LA.APP.45/201 0; LA.APP.48/201 0; 1 .A.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.131201I:. LA.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP.1 1 76,2008; 1A.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. 201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 (Re1atig to Notification N. F. 1 0(30)/96/L B/LA/i 3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 ,of the I.ai.d Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2' 02, Village Bharthal,Dèlhi)

(GRH)-B). Ieserved on: December 08, 2011 rounced

1..A.APP. 294/2010 (VIL E.- BLJWASAN). DLV1.NDL.R KUMAR Appellant Throu lvir.P1. Si nar., Mr.Vireridra Singh • [,A.App, No 1195/)003 & connected Appeals of ViHage .A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Vil!age B isa ri I A.App No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village P anpu , Pac 3 of 29 .. 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 1JOI & ANR Respondents Throug Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with • M.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms..Navlin Swain, Advocates • •: for LiOl/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.BK. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. V • • Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R68 , V71 . • & 72 in appeal filed by UOI • Mr.Banlcey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal V Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates f01V f)T/ V LA.APP. 1/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010; V LA APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/20 10 LA.APP. 54/20 10 LA.APP. 55/201 ft • :. LA.APP 56/2010 LA.APP. 57112010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70 12010' I '\APP 100/2010 LA APP 221/2010 LA APP 223/2010 LA APP 226/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP.. 246/2010 LAAPP, 277/2010 LA.APP.281/2010 V LA APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APF. 285112010 LA.APPV 287/010 LA.APPV 288/2010 LA,APF. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 (A APP 295/2010 IAAPP 296/2010 L APP 313/2010 LAAPP 34 /2010 I '\ APP 346i010 LA APP 347/2010 i A APP 348/2010 LA APP 34U/2010 TVA.A.PP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/201.0 I AAPP 354/2010 LA APP 356/20 1 0 LAPP 37i2010 IA PP 3/20110 V V LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 V IVA.APP. 360/010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LVA...APPV 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/20 tO • IVA.APP. 405/2010 •LAVA1P, 406/21.0 LAVAPPV 407/2.010 LAVAPP. 4081/2010 V V • I A APP 409/2010 LA APP 438010 A APP 88/2010 I A APP 22/2010 • • • LAVAPP. 723/2010 LA.APP.724/2V010 LAVAPP. 725/2010 LA.VAPP. 726/2010 • V LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2019 l..,APP. 731/2019 LA.APPV 732/2010 V • LA.APP. 750/2010 J.A.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 IV ,A.APP. 828'2010 1,A.APP. 9642010 LA.APPV 86/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 V LA.APP. 77/20 10 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 99/20 10 & LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.MVNO. 94/201 1 (Cioss,-objectons) • V (Relating to Notification No F 10(30)96-i & B/LA/I 3417 dalcd 1312 000 • • issued under Section 4 of the Land Acqui sition Act, 1 894 & Award No 28/2002-200E,Village Bijwasn, l)elhi) : AND • I.App. No .1195/2008 P. connected Appeals of Village Bharthsl • i.A.Ap9. No. 291,201() & connected 4ppea!s of Village Bijwsan • . • • V V /\ App No J 1 /3010 & ronn CR d I ppeals of Villape Pochonpur Fc, p e 4 01 29 LA.APP. 1] 1/2010 (VILLjU SE1-IAJ RAM AND ORS. Through versus UNION OF JNI)IA & ANR Through: (GRiDC) Reserved on: DecemcjJ,8)O]'] Lp.nounced on: January 06, 2012 E POCHANPUR) Appllants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64,65/2011) .Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior AdvOcate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navljn Swain., Advocates for' UO1/IAC Mr.Bankev Bihai Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shariii a and Mr. Somer K. Seth, Advocates for DDA: LA.APP. 111/2010 LA.AP 15412010 LA.APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APp.65/21O LA.APP•.209/2010 IJA.APP, 215/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 48/20I0 L,A.App.249,'2010 LA.APP. 250/2010 LA.APP. 254/2010 LA.APP. 60/2010. LA.APP. 261/2010 LA.APP.•270/2010 LA.APP. 292/2010 LA.APP.. 293/2010 LA.APP. 305/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 !I\'\PP '307/2010 LA.APP. 17i'20I0 LA.APP, 392/2010 LA.APP. 39120iC I APP 95/2010 LA APP 396/2010 1 A API' 397/2010 LA APP 412/2010 IA APJ 420/2010 IA APP 432/2010 1 A APP 433/2010 LA APP 4'2010 IA API' 466/7010 LA APP 489/2010 L \ APP 57 '2010 I A APP 65'20J0 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 39/20i0 LA.APP: 640/2010 LA.APP. 657/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.APP d62/2010 LA.Aj:i'. 741/2010 LA.APP. 758/2010: LA.APP. 767/2010 LA.APP,

LAMP. 784/2010 LA.APp;9l8/2010 IA API' 919i010 LA APP 10S2'2010 L\APP 61//011 LA APi' 04i2011 LA.APP. 65/2011 LA.APP. 11 6/2011 LA.A.PP. 11 7/21 I LA.APP. 119/2011 1 LA.APP. 120/2011 LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 129/2011 LA.APP. 429/201 I LA.APP. 476/2011 LA.APP. 485/201 I L.A.APP. 521/2011 LA.APP. 522/2011

1.A.APP, 523/2011 LA.APP. 525/201.1 LA.APP.26/201 1 LA.APP. 535'01 I LA.APP. 536/2011 LA.APP. 5' 4/2011 LA.APP. 591/2011 IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appesis of Village Bhartal

1.AApp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Viliagd I3ijwasn 'LAPpp No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocha pur,

, ' Pane 5 of 29 7/7/ (Relating to Notification. No. F.1030)96-L& B/1,A/13417 thted

13.12.2000 issued undrSction 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Poclianpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUST! SUNIL GAUR ORD

06.01,2012 /0 Since the grounds Oili which enhahceiñent of the compe1sation is sought by the appc11ants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties presrit at the hearing of these appals, these •unh of appeals pertaihing to Notification No. F. 1 0309-L& B/LA/i 3417 dialed 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposd of by this coiimon order. Acquisition processfor planned development of Dwaka Phase-IJ in 1)elhi, commenced with the isuance of Notification of 13I' December, 2000 unde Setion 4 of the Land Acquisitioii Act, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agriculturaL land in one Compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question i.e., Bhartha!, i3ijwasan andPochanpur. . ' Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three '.. villages stood acquired by tc Respondents vide three separate A'ãrds, i.e., Award No.26/2002-240;. Award No.28/2002-2003 ;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting (ompensation ..13.82 lacs per are for )3locl 'A' (level fieldwii top soil); and @ 12.32 lacs per acre fr Block '13' (without top Soi1): H I)iaiiscd with the ssesment ol market value of their acqnii d LApp. No. 119S/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lAApp. No: 29"/2010 & connected Appeals of Village 8ijwasn !:f.App. No. 1 i1/2W,O & connected Appeals of Village Pochaipur . . 'age 6 of. 29 agricultural lands, appe1lats had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced crnpensation Z15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ZI.3.36 lacs per icrc for their Block '13' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Villae Pochanpur have been dismissed. • .

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the, appellants of Villages 1harthal and Bijasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs pci' acre, wherea appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the late of Rupees Thirty lacs per acic by ielying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in .Ececutive Engineer, .Kariuiti'ika Housing, Bow d vs. Lund Acquisition Officer, Gadag sand I Ors (2011) 2 SCC 246; Aijani Mom .Dessai i's. State of Goa and Anr,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; SubhRwn anitOrs vs. State of Hárpana andAnr,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; San gunthafa (Dead) diró ugh LRs. Vs, Special Tehsilda, ('LandAcquisitin) & Ors, (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Sing/i andAnr, i's Union of i4a AIR 2005 SC 367, (lund/ia Falura NO

(D) through LRs i's. Thel Special Lqnd Acquisition Officer, Jaiguon, 201 1(2) SCALE 321; JaiLal vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Ruma JS'ànd (since deceased) thiougIvLRs vs. Union of India & Anr., 2002 (65) .DRJ 1 (DB); Udiw Dass vs. State of'Haryana & Ors,., 20] 0(9) SCALE 41; Glukas vs. Sir1e of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SC Al 1 362, A i'inas'h Dh1ai'tqi A'a,k c State of MJi as'htt a ( 009) 11 SCC 171; Atma Singi (Dead) through LRs and Ors i's. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008)2 SCC 568; W.P. No. 4143/2003 titled as Snit. indu Khorana vs. Gram Sub/ia & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (201]) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibha Dev/ibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, LAApp. No.1 19b/200N & conocted Appeals of Village hartha • . • LAAp. No. 7.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No 1.11/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pchar'pur • • . Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Gorporation, (2010) 11. SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. (Iiiion of India & Anr0, 2006 (89).DR0T 527 (DB); Lal Chand vs0 Union • of India and Anro ; (2009) 15 SCC769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rarneshbhai Jivanbluii Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisitioii) and Ann, AIR 201.1. sc 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Autlwritv, (2004)10 SCC 745; Mahesl' Dattatra)' Thirthkai vs0 State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; .Kapil Mehra (Major . Genera) & Oi c Vs Union of india & 14nr, 176(2011) I)LT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.., decided, on 24.04.2008; Om Prakasli ('dead) by LRs an Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 5CC (527; $atpal & brs vs UnIH of India, (1997) 11 SCC 23, LA APP No.656/2008 titled as Suhil Kuthar vs. Union of India, decided Ofl: • 26.09.2011; IA APP. N .59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Unio,i of india, decided. on 07.06.201i; and Bhuie Ram.vs, Union of India, 2010

(170) Dl 1371

¶6On the strength of te aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, ii; was urged b' Mr.13.S.Maaf-i. learned afguing counsel for the appellants . that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must he ac.Ijudged keeping in viw he development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot b6 limited to the near future alone. .7. It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tonar cousci for appellarilts. thai. • . I)e.ihi-Rcwari-Jodhpur broad gagc raivay line of Village Biijwasan isss, through the land of Village 13,hirtha1, dividing it into two paris, I i e , on the castein side oft ic xailway linc is the TGI Aiipot, New 1)eihi LAApp. No. 119/2003 & connected Appeals of ViHage Bh 1n'thal I A.App. No. 291/2010 & connected /\ppeals 0 Village 0ijasan LA,/\pp. No. 11:1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Poch;jnpur H •• . . • . and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from from Shi' Murti towards I)warka Sub-City Part-I and Part-Il agin divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where .IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm ilouses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, ipiwasan and Sam alkha. it was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Sola.nki learr1ied counsel for theappellants. that northern part of the land of Village Ihartha1 was first acquired for the extension of 1(11 Anpoit in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of i)warka Phase-i and the lands on the western sid? of Villages Bamnoli and I)hool Siras were also acquired for the de\lelopment of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the ks sizras/mapto highlight that the boundary I of Village Bharthal, Villag Pochanpur and Village I)hool Siras are contiguous. It was strenuously urgbd 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 iflegaliy treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16t1 Octobe, 2000 vid.e which land use of the three villages in' question was frotn agricdltura! to rsidentiaI/ coinmeicial/industrial, etc. aifid infact the efftire land of Village Bhtrthal liad ceased to be rural in Vie\ of the Notification of 2401 October, 1994. it was argued with nuch vehemence by Mr.S.i(.Rout learhe.d counsel for the appellants tht the aftrcsaid two Notifications have been wrohgly discarded by the Riefcre.ncc Court: by relying upon P. Ramu I/\.App. No. 195/2oo8 & connected Appees of Village Bhartf i\ App,. No. 294/2010 & connectea Appeak of Village Bijwasa O Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors; (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has be n considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Who Dass vs. State of Haryan & Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must he adjudged keping in view, the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authoritis do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that tJ.ire is no buildiig potentia.1itv 1 0. Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma learned counsel[br the appçllants upon the seven Sale Deeds of \' illage Pochanpui to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs and merely because of the sai vafiation; these sale exemplars cannot he thrown out as has been il1eally done by the Reference Court, becaLiSe there is no hais to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advntages and as per settled legal propOsition laid down by the Apex Cotrt in Anlani IWo/u Desai vs. State of (oa (indAflr, (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to he taken as leplesenting the rniket puce of the land whlLh conies to Z57 lacs per acre and since the sle exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the cornparablc sale intance, thLlefoJC, ;eljancc' placed by the Reference Court upon the miimum ratcs/drcle rates for deteirriining the m&ket value ofthe acquired and is patCntly erroneous,

¶11Assessment ofmarket value of the acquird land was sought by Mr.R.Godara ldarned counsi fot the appellants on the basis of the L&

i)() .rates tixed by the Goternnient and also on the basis of pr dcteiniincd rates fixed by tleCovclnm( iii foi allolmcnl of altei naLe plots in the year 2000-2001 Ieeting In N/lew the loLatlon, situation and potentiality of tij c acquired lL1d, dc'ermillafion of its market value is LA.pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeas of Village Bharihal . . LA.4pp. No. 294/201.0 & connected Appeal, of Village 8ijwasan LA.pp No. f11/20i0 & connected Appals of VilIagcPochanp r . Pge 10 of 29 I sought on the strength of a1e exemplars of Village Pochánpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on thebasis of the L& DO rdtes of the : ;developed lands in Dwarl a Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-J)etermined Rates (PDRs) as referrd to above;

¶12In the written synopsi:, appellant .- 1mpulse India Private Limited ofLA. App. No. 295/2009 as assailed the impugned judgment on the following, grounds:- Ignores the ackowleddment on the part of the respondeit about the Award No.2612002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ pet itin No. 19012 of 2006. (Refred to in cioss —examihation of' appellant . dated • .IS

2.7.2007) .l)oes not account tbr the fithi that the Public Notice dated .18.9.1.987 aaverseiy ffected the rates of land in the area for more 111han 15 years bfore the Notification under Sectioi'i 5 of the Land /1cqu1sit1on Act, 1894 was issied. c Valuing the land on the hasi of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued lx the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi i not in accor ance with t e .aw laid

doii n by various dcI5ionv including in one of the more rec.enl decisions Of the Ilon'hle S'upteme Court in Sangunthala versus Tah ,ldui 2010(3) SCC 661 d) ignores the eviden e and other fOctors which as per established law, has to e consi.tered before ascertaln,nr the value of the land ttnde," acquisition. ) Does noi, deal with dispaiiv in value the Sale Deeds produced befoe the ii'ial Court whereas as per the law established by the 1on 'h/c Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda IJakird Paul ..versis Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeat A'o.5475 of 2007. The lion 'b/c Supreme Court has sp/cificaliy held that Sale Deed showing highr rate should not he disregarded in LA.App. Np. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeak of Village Bharthl LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village I3ijwasar LA.App, No. .1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of . Village Pocheneur • S a case the average scile price is lOwer. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. St1e of Go, 2010(13) SC 710, the Supreme court hac also held that the highest• of the exemplars and not by averaging of dfferent types of sales transaction shduid he considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a cçrtin land. B J?eiied upon ju4meni dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No, 97A/2006 to deide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and 13,36, 000 in Block B in violation of the law laid dovn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in. Suhh Rain vs.. State of Hai ana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a cnsequen(l-,e, the impugned judgment refused to return 9n actual finding on the issue No. 1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide 1Votflcation of the v1unicipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Viliae Dhool Siras aiid Bharthai was changed and theseareas ceased to be agricultural and came now under tle urban boundaries of I)elhi State. The masterplan and Noti.fi"carioiis Of Government for land use chage chow that in J1,11ure land can be subjected to resdentiq/. commercial and other permissible uses. It i also pertinent to mention that the appellant lead evidnce in re pcct ci ii e 74Ih amendment • of the Constitution of India. w:e.f 1.6.1993 LX A, bv virtue of which the Municipal . Corporation Act was • amended and the circa where the land is situated, was deemed a municipa area and the municipal Counseiloi - was elected from t'(lere.. No Panchayat elcctions were held in the area. h Refused to apply te law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 347, Ranvij .Singh and .4iir vs, Union of india and refused to consider the ffict that the development in the area has a dirct effect on the price that cm willing purchaser would paj /àr. the sul lcd lan(l 1) ignored the fcict hat Rvponde,nt No. 2 had also L/\.App. No. 1195 j2009 & connected Appeals of Village Bhartfel LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals Of Village Biiwasah .LA.App..No. 111/2010 & codnected Appeals of Village Pochanpur I 9~ auctioned similarlk , situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of aboii Z2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdevelped land. f) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined aution rates set by Respoi.dent No. 2 for slmiiarly situat d land. k Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Thi'arka Phase H. it is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and • Bharthal was chaiged and these areas ceasd to be agricultural and cme now urdei' the urbai boundaries of Delhi Stale. 1) nored Notificatios dqied 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they cfrari estah7ish. the commercial potentiality of the said land. in Sañunthala v. Tahsildar LA), (2010) 3SCC 661 it was held that the purpose for • which land is acc1uired is a rele''ant factor. While determining, value of the property acquired the fict whether the land ha go! building potentialit; to he used for building purpo'es in immediate or in near future neecLv to be considered. in) The presenCe of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to bc treated i.s house sites. The iancl were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portin of the land is being considered as house site the adjining lands have the potential of being put in better use is house sites in the near future. I

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved. Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have been 'provided With a prayer that the appLllants of this appeal be tcated at par with the co-appcllants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. Suppicmcnting the afoi said algurnerits advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr Ana.nd Yadv Advocate that the effect of .A.App. No. 1 195/2008 & cOnnected Appeals Of Village Bharthal [.A.App.No. 794 12010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasn IA.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur • . Page 13 0129 urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been consideed, in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. Stqte of Mt'tharashtra, AIR 200 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vc. Union of India & Anr, 176(201 1) DL 1' 361 and that Pre-l.)ctermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to detrmine the market vale of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the, appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired. lnds, Thus, enhancement of compensation' reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for he acquired lands is 'sought in these appeals. .

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay • ' . . Poddar, learned Senior Cotnsel urged •that'hough as per Section 5 1 A of Land Acquisition Aci 184, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an • . adrnissib!e.evjdcnce but th . same cannot be taken as rclevantevjdence for determination of the hrnrket. value unless and until the same is properly connected with t e land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature., situation of the property, proximity to the il!agc etc. are also ,required to he considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct . market value of the acquird lands have been, illegally rejected by the • . Reference Court and while Dlacing reliance upon. the decisions in Jai La! i's, Union of' India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Unin qf. India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; La! Ghand vs Union 0/india and ,,4nr,, 'V

(2009)15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as SusbllKunwr vs. V Union 0/india, decided on26.09.201 ,it was ui'ged that sharp increase V fri price in a short period cahnot be taken to be realistic until reasons for V such sharp increase 'are exlained by producing in evidence the seller 'LA,App No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhal'thal • . V ' . f,A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan

tA.App. No. 111/7010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ' , Page 14 oZ9 and the purchaser as no I rudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the maket would.pay such a higher pay as reflected in • • the sale instance of Rad a Swami Salsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& 1)0 ratcs/Pr-I)etcrmjned Rates cannol be coUntenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court iii La! Cli nd (supra) - which has beei followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (supra) and Rj Singh (supra); •

¶16So far as potential ty of the land is concerned, it was urged by

Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cos4 objectors that the same hs already been factored into, while fixing th • minimum indicative price of the agriuItural land by the Governient as on ] April, 2000 and bk granting apprecIatiOn thereon @ 12 0/,1*) per annum, market value of the acadired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Cow, as in Suhil Kurnár (supra) appreciation @ 10% per arnum has been granted. Thus, it is subrnited that there is no scope for fiiher enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition: Collector and so, the impugned • . .• judgment deserves to be modifled dciCtihg the cnhanecment by the S Rcfirence (ouit while takihg into consideration the appreciation (EI? I 2% per annui-n and the same deserves to he brought in line whilegranting appreciation 10% per annual and thereby allowing the cross-- • . ohjetions to the aforesaid extent. • • • •

¶17Afte-considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned judgment, the evidence on record and the decisions citd, what einrges is that the true market value of ti-ic comparable landis thle price paid by willing purchaser to a willing

1.A.App. NC). 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of ViUap,e Oharthil .A./\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViHage Bijwsan • I AApp. No. i.1.1/2C10 & connertedAppels of -village Poch'inpur • Page 15ci 29 seller and the best evidenc is the coi±iparable sale instances. While dealing with the question o potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in asessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haiyana & Ors 2010(9) SCALF 41 in tese words:- "(iv the situation u/the acquired land vis-a-vis the cii)) or the town or villge. which had been growing in size because of. its C071livercial, , industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population; (1/) the suitability 0± the acquired land/or putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case maybe; possibility u/obtaining water and electric supply/or occupants o/buldmgs to be put up on that land; absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purpose; existence q/ highways, pub/ic roads, . iayouis of. htilding plots ol' deve7opd residential extenions in the vicinity or cl se proxin'l It V oft/ic acquired land, benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care cenrës, or the like in the surroundig areas of the 4cquired land whIch may become 'available to the fccupiers.o/"buildings, if built on the acquired land, apd

1.

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being, in demand fan' building purposes, ' to .cJ7ecifyafew "

¶18The potentiality, of lanq for the purpose. of development as also for C building purposes depends uon a 1ar.e number of factors. For the said purpose, tl,e Court may not n1y have to. bear in mind the purpose fi3r A.App. NC), 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of V2Iage BhartaI Lt.App. No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village oijwssa . . .. , ,LA.App. No. 213/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochnpur which the lands. were souglt to he acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so dbserved by the Apex Court in 4vinasli (supra) While ieiteating the relevant factors for deteiirnnation of compensation for acquire lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Alma Singh (supra) that L. 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. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr i''. M.K. RaJiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The lgal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon • on behalf of the appellants is that wher there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having sin1iilar advantage available to thefn even as icgaick lutuic piospects, tlere is no JusilfiLatlon for ieducing the • compensation on the ground f distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land. It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market valu of the acquired land is on the State who has acquiicd the agiicultuial land foi a particular puipose But, it is equally true that the burder of proving inadequacy of compensati Ofl S . awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Coun in Kiran Tandon(Supta) canbe rcieiied to with advantage,

Apex Court. in Vai1iyatima/ (Supra). while taking note of the fact that the acquired land wasi situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutins, hopitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40 6,'o towards development charges was improper. The pertinent ohc1vdtiOn madc by the pcx Coutt i Anjant I!o/u Desai (Supla) seive attention, vvluch are as under UUA No. 1195/2009 & connected Appeals of Village Bhanth1l i..App. No. 7.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan •LAt.App. No, 1.1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l'ochanpur I it (i "The lega.i position is that even where there are sevrai exemplars with refrence to similar lands, usually the highest of the exempars, which is a bona fide transaction, will he considered. Wheie however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the aveage thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. Bt w4ere the values disclosed in respect of twO sales are markdiy difftrent it can only head to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on 'acount of under-valuation or other prlce depressing reasons: Consquentiy averaging cannot he resorted to.[ " . It would be worthwhile to tak ':noe of the clinching observations pertaining to deteirnination of fair maikct late of acquned lands made by the Apex Court in. C indha Fakiru, Paul (Supra), which are as ioliows:- It is well settled, that genuh'eand bona fide sale transactions in respct of the lai'id under acquisition or in its absence the honajilde sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisitin of the lands . situated in the • . ' neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility take place hetieen a willing vendee and the willing vendor which ould be expected to reflect the true value, as agreec between. prudent persons acting in the normal ?narket coi'i.ditions are the real basis to determine the market value. Principles to determie the market value of the acquired 'lands as reiterated by the Apex Cout in Oil and Natural Gas corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- 'Primarily, the inc4ase in land prices depends on four fhctors - sittthtion of , the land, nature of development in surrounding area, a'ailabiliti.' / land fbr development in the area, and the dniand for ict.d in the area, in rural areas unless theie i any prospect of development in the vicinitV, increase in prices . would be slow, steady and gradual, w,thout any udden sjurts or jumps. l.A.App. No. J.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Vilage Bhakhal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwsari L,App. No. 11 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Poch epur on the other hand, i urban or sèin i-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 markei price is at .a much higher rate, as compared to rural ai1eas. in some pockets in big cities, due to rapid developnw('it and high demand Jr land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 506 or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where theie was no chance of any development and ha1'dly any, buyers, the prices stagnated fr,).'ears or rose marginally at a non'inal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant dif in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in mark.eivalue of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 1.5% per annum the corresponding in reases in rural areas would at best be on/v around half of 4 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 specIc evidence relating to increase in prices.' Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase,, or any specc evidence re/a1ing to the ;ctuai increase in, prices, then the incr ase to be applied iouid depend upon the same. iVormaily, recourse i taken 10 the mode of determining the market value by proiding appl'oprzate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lo,nds in prevloUs years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisiiion), i'here there is no evidence of anycontemporunous sale transactions or - . acquisitions of comparable lands in, the neighbourhood. The said method is reasahiy 'safe where the relied--on-sale tranactions/acquisitf)ns precedes the sub fect acquisition by only a few years, hat is upto i.?ur to five years. Beyond that it may be unsaf4, even if it 'rekites to a neighbouring • land. What may be areliabie 'standard f'the gap is only a years may becme unsaft and unreliable standard where the gap is . la!*er. Por example. /hr determining the n'iaiket value of a l5nd accjuii'ed. in 1992, adoptiiig the annual increase . method witl'i i-e,trence to a sale oi-l.A.App. No. 1.95i200N & connected Appeals of Village Bhathal .,s.Apo. No. 294/2010 & conceded Appeals of Village 9iiwaan [A.Ap'o No. 1.3.112010 & connected Appeals of Village Poch npur acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pit ails. This is because, over the ccurse of j)ears, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself uidergo drastiC change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varytngperiods of stagnation in prices or sudden spi4s in prices affecting the very standard 0/increase." This Court is mindful 6if the dictum of the 4pex Court in Haryana State Industrial Developine1it Corporation (HSID() (Supia), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods: hat was said by the Apex Court in HSTJ)C (Supra) is as inder:- When dzfferent categories of iand (or lands with different siluational advantages are acquf)ed for the same purpose. say /àr forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes fell that determination of their value with refCrence to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform rate of compensatioln should he awarded for alt lands acquired undr the same notification." Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exen-iplars in and around acquired iand of Village BIarthaL Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitar-sale exemplar strongly relied, upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the sever Sale I)ecds vide which religious institution, i.., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pocharipur at a price which varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 iacs per aère. Whether aforesaid Sal Deeds (Ex.PW 1/4 to Ex.PW 1/JO) which are hsica] ly between one sef of Co--owners anftRadha Swami Salsan, l3eczs in respect of the compadt block of land measuring 18, Bighas and 6 .Biswas situated in Village PoChanpur reflect the corrct iriaket value of the land, in the villages in quction is the moot question which is required W be answcicd Evidently, afoiesatd sale excmplars, i c Sale Deeds LA.pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected ppeIs of Village Bharthäl I..App. No. 294/2010 &. connected Appeak of Village Bijwasan . .. . . LA.Apo. No. 111/2030 & connected Appeals of ViIlge PochanpUr f I (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/0) indicate that its price varies from Z 5.2 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Weaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds ('Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the, aforesaid lands. Evidnce to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of hese sale .exemplars with acquired land in qtiestion, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchasef of the'se agricultural lands in Village Pocharipur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-i/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has not been brought out as the purchser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by th appellants. Had the purchaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been. 'got examined, then it could have been elicited 1"roib, him as to .wly 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 purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale I)eed executed on 25hh1 March, 2000 was also subject matterIn l.A. App. No. 266/2008 titled $ Jai Sing/i vs. Union of Iidia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. Appi. No 999/2010 titled as Raj Sing/i vs LTn ion of India, decided on

19..2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village M.amurpur vas discarded while holding that the same cannot be treate1 as rcprCsentative price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant mattes, though the land use of the acquired 1and.; was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidenc' that the acquired "lands were being used for agricultural pLrpose till theij acquisition. Thus, it beconies eviden.t that the acquired lands were not developed lands., No prudent person having kno'ledge of prevaiiin4 IJ\.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village 8harthal

1A.Ap. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 1.11/2010 & connetted Appeals of Village Poclianpur 5V market price of the land in question woid pay such a high price unIss and until such purchase is mant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Lx.PW-1/4 to ExPW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. So •far as the sale exemplarof Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) by the appel1ant is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of relied upon 1,76,55,172.41 per acre reikting to Sale I)eed of 27 °' January, 2000, it needs to he noted that because this saleexeinplar (Ex.PW-l/1 1) was situated on the National Iighway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-l/1 1) vendor had so'd 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 theref, this sale exemplar cannot he treated as a rep esentative price for the acquired lands in question. Left with no sale exethplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be coisidered as to whether adoption of L& i) circular rates for the developed lands and • Pre-I)etermined Rates for tIe alternate p]ots by the DI).A ought to be' • adopted to determine the tue market value of the acquired lands in question.

Parameters governing fixation of rnarJcet value of acquired lands • . highlighted by Apex, Court ii its deciion reported as P. Ram Rddp and Ors. v. Land Acquisition .OJjicer Hyderabad Urban Development Authoiitj Hyde; abad and Oh, 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as undci -

¶12however, in ei1ir o[the said cases wheihei it be the dctci mination of the Harkei value of the acquired land with building potentiality with re/rence to the prIce fetched by sale ofplotc in a well c'eveioped layout in the neighborhood 'I A'.App. No.1 1,95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal . • .'App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Rijwasbn IAApp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochapur Page U of 29 H : 11 ~ •1 or whether it he the determination of the market value of the acquired land with bilding potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sae of building plots in an undeveloped • layout of building plts in the neighborhood, it becomes • inevitable for the Cozrt to find out what will be the price JClchedor to befetchei by the sales ofplots in the layouts, • relied upon by any of tie parties; with reference to the price whtch the plots could lave fetched if sold on the date of the publication of the prliininary not iflcatiôn under Section 4(1) of the Act. Furthe, where no evidence ofprice fetched by the sales of the piths in layouts of building plo/s in the • neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be .doie is to fihcl out the market value of the acquired land with re/èrerice to therelevant date of publication under Secion 41) of the LA Act, acording to the actual use to vvhich it was put and increase its valie by a small percentage laving regard tO the degree of its building potentiality ascert'ainCd on the bzsis of evidence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 11 15th of the market value of the land fouid out according to its actual user since resort to the mthod of giving increased value for such building poten1iclity arises only when there is. no evidence of sales of biidiig plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indiLiting that there was no immediate demnan.d, as such, fr building plots even if farmed in the acquired land.

¶31In view Of the difficulties in adoption of :ate of land charged by the J)I)A after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the sathe, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Chatid (Sup.ra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-I)etcrmjned Rates n determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped 'freehl.d lands.:Foi1owing the dictum of J/ Cfl and (Supra), a coordinate 3enc.ii of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kuinar (Supra) has excluded the i)I)A rates qua the developed lands as being not ~_elevanll for assessing the mdrket value of A.App. No.1 1.95/2()08 & connected Appeals of Village L'harth LA.App. No, 294/201.0 & connected Appeals of ViUage llijwasan LA.App. No. 1.1112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanp z7 the undeveloped acquired lands. 'fhus, I find, that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the I)DA rates for allotment of developed land or the I)DA' s Pie-I)etermined Rates for 'lternate allotments for fixing the mrket value of the acquired agricultural lands, in question. Now what is requird to be sen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while takii1ig into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bartha1 and other villages for development of

i)warka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Pocidar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at the compounü ed rate of I O.% 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 instant Notification for, developrnet of Dwarka Phase1I, still the prce fixed by the Land Acquisition ColleLtor is more than the aforesaid esca]ated price and therefore, the enhan1ement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in. La! Ghand (Supra), cautioning the Courts 1:0 adopt progressive increase methd in assess ment of the market value of th e acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it relats to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gapis of only of a few years, may becoin unsafe and unreliable standard wlere the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifcations, Le.. of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-Il is of sixteen years and 1hcrefdc, it wQuid he unsa'fe to addpt: the mode of determining th market value by providing appropriate L.App. No. I i9s/200g:& connected Appeals of Village Rhrthal l..A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Vrllage.Bijwsan I.A.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur U~)~ escalation over the market value of, the.pearhy land of the previous years. Mr.Sanjay Poddar learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation I O% per ainum. After having perused the decIsion in Sushi! Kuinar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher 'potentiality of the acqiird land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushil Kurnar (Supra) escalatioh granted by the Reference Court ( 1 2% per annum cannot e reduced to 1 O% per annum. In this view of tbe matter, the cross-objections of the respondnt are dismissed. Now what is to he, seen is whither adoption of Government's rnininium pncc of the agri ultuial land in I)eihi, by the Rcfciencc Cowl is .reasonable ciiteiia for determining the market value of thc acquited land and as to whether the escalation of. 1201/0 per annum granted by the Reference Court from the fate of fixatiori of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Gof'etnrnent JSI April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant lappeals deserves to be further increased or Adoption of (iovcinicnt's minimum iatcs of agiiultuial land pertaining to the No1.ificaion . in qu.sfion has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellauts because the acquired land had cascd to he an agricultural land by 6tue of Notification of 2411 October, I 994 declaung agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide afrcsaid Notification of the year 1994 the lahd use of the acquired land had changed bt that by itsei 1 is not sufficient to IA,App. No. 1395/2008 & connected Appeals of V8lage Bha thai No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViHage Bijwasan LA.App. No.31.1/2.010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochnpur . Page 25o1 29 • . presume that the acquired lands had gained potentia]ity for being considered as developed lands. The evidence ld is lackiflg on the vital aspect of there being any deeloprncnt.jn and aound the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exeiplars of Radha Swami • Salthng, Beqs heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agriultural purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges fiom the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification undei Section 4 of the I and Acquisition Act, 1 894,. the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been incrase in pricedue to higher demand, on aCcount of ptentiaiity of the acquired lands upon cliang of their use post the year 1994, th1] appellants could have laid thir hands o.iot1ier sale instances in the area in question. I3ut, indeed appelants cannot,rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.P1/1 I) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and I6otentiai.ity of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, l3eas in VU age Pochahpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contigiity of the acquired land with the sale instance of \'iilagc San]alkha (l3x. PW-l/1 I.) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compnsatio..t .wh IIC rclving upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in vic.w of the afbi'c-referrecl dictum of the Apex Court . in Haryana Slate industrial. Development corporation J,SJDc) (Supra), uniform rate of con.pensatjon deserves to he awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the hoverri mcnt for the agricultural land i n I)cihi, . which generally facto-s in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. I aking note of th fact that there is a gap between what flApp, No. 2.195/208 & connected Appeak of Village Bharthal LA,App. NO. 294/2010 & Connected Appeale of Village Bijwasan I.A,App. No. 211120.10 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanu, . . Pa 26 of 29 • would he expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Governmei t's minirnum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lards in Jai Sing/i (Supra) as well as in Sushul Kurnar (Supra) and I find 110 reason to take a differen view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this pourt in the aforesaid cases of J111 Sing/i (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar Supra). -

¶38This Curt is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasari has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural • lands in 1)clhi to fix the market valuC of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthai and Village Bijwasan, of thcie being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is siii1ar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher phtentiaIityof the acqun cd lands being in close viLinity of the 101 Aiipoi t Indian Oil and Bhaiat Petiolcum I)cpots ad of Railway line passing thiough Vilhge • Bllarthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 Ii orn Shiv Muiti side to Dwaika Sub-City, Pait I and Pait 11, dividing the acquired lands in two porfons, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lan s has somehow missed the attentioi of the RLFeI ence Couit In the con icleic d opinion of his Court on account of aforesaid locational advantaes, the acquired lands in question, ceiainly • assume highei building potetiaiity being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-i. What peivades this Couit t giant lOo increase over and above niaiket value of the acquned iand as assessed by the Reference Court On account of the highei bwldig potentiality in the acquned lands is the .i\p; No. 1 195/2008 & connectd AppeIs of ViIIge BhrthI !:/k,App. No. 294/2010 & connected AppeIs of Vilage Bijwasn JJc.App. No; 1.1112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 27o1 29 settled legal, position apt highlighted by the Apext Court in M7rZa Nausherwan Khan vs. Co ector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- • "When once a conc7us ion is reached that there was the possibility of the ac4uired land being used for putting up buildings in the immdiate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient o hold that the acquired land had a buildig poentiai1tj and proceed to determine its market value taking into accunl the incease in price attributable to such building pote.t'iaiil'."

¶39Considring the fat that it would be very difficult to provide a • definite va]ue qua potential andin view of the fact that exactness can ncvr be achieved in the n atters of assessing fair compensation, it is . broad probabilities of the insan.t cases, which persuades ie to treat them with equivalence byuniformly applying the Governmeii's minimum •]--)I-Ices Ir the agricultural lards for computing the fair market value of the acquired lnds as there are no special features to tret the acqaired lands dilTerently and so, appellaiiis of Village Pochanpur are treated at • par with their counterparts, i.e., appellants Of Viflage Bharthal and Village •Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the deciion in Sushil • . Kuniar (Supra), 1 am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the market, value of the acquired iands determined by the Refrence Cburt in these matters on account of the afcreaid locational advantages providing a higler building ptentiality.i) the cquircd lands in question.

¶40'Accordingly, these apeaJs are art1y allowed to the extent of awarding I O% increase over and above the rnarkt value assessed by the Reference Court in matters Pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village •Bijwaan. While treating the apcllants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bhaijthal and Village I3jwasan the appeals of LApp. NC) ..I.i.9/2oog & connected Appeals of Viiege 13harthal

M.App No. 2941'2010 & COnnectedAppe5Is of VillaiI Bijwasari I.A.App. No ......1/20.10 & connected Appeals of village Pochanpu the appellants of Village Pochanpur (are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the markt value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question I determined @ 16,50,000/- per bigh for the Calcgoiy 'A' land and @ 14,69,600/- per bjha for the Category 'B' lands n question. 1\ 1•i 4]. On thc aloiesaid enhancement in the compensation awaided, statutory benefits as per the Land Acijtion Act, 1894 as explaine±in the judgment reported in Stthdei vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are gianted, ccept for the pcud wheic there is a klay in filmg the appeal, Ioi hich pci iod ol delay n 'neicst on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants wuld be entitled to propoffionáte costs.

¶42'The. above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the athresaid terms wi± direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if an', deposited by either side with the Regisiiai General oF this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. I)ecree sheet be accordingly Prepared. . . . . • . (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE January 06, 2012 J

1.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village A.App, No, 294/2010 & connected Appeak of Village IA.Ap.No.111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village F IN THE hIGH COURT I F DELHI AT NEW DELHI f LAAPP 1195/2008 • RANBIR SHARMA i .....Appellant f hi ough Mr B S Mean, Mr Arnit Maan, Mr Jai Pi akash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S..Verrna, Mr.Jitin 'l cwathia, Advocates Ms.Anita '1fornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohta, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate S Mr.N.S.gi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rut, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Nbgiand Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondrt in appeals filed by UOI) Mr. Sudhafishu Tornar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tornar. Mr.B.D. harrna, Mr.SK.So1anki and Mr.S.K.Rbut, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & A. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with• • . Mr.Sanjaj' Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and • . . . Ms.Navlih Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI. . Mr.Ajay.erma Mr;S.K.Sethi, Ms. Arnita Singh, . Mr.Banky Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner I.Seth, Advcates for DDA. coiM: FION"BLE MR, JUSTICE UNIL GAUR ORDE1 % ••

12.0162012 • C.M. AppL No 752/2012 (For correction). I his is an apphcatioi1i for seeking typogiaphical coirection in • SS • Order of6ih January,2012. ' S • • Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice • Page 1 J;A.App.No. 1195/2008 of, the application. Advance copy. of this application has already been given to relñaining cOunsel for the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6th Janua, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rae of compensation assessed is per bigha', wheras it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appe11ans. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered t1at the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 11f5/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary con-e.ctjon be cafried ut fitlwjth. . In view otLhe.afoës id,thi 8 .ap.pli .ëatjo1i.staids disposed of. (SUNIL GAUR) JANUARY 12, 2012 JUDGE pkb Page2

. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November', 2011 Pronounced on.January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 813/2008 BHOOP SINGH & ORS Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azarn Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates •Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.I-T.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 Jadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, 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