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

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma V5. Union of India & Anr. t^^ONrLGAURi JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb /a versus I) OF DELHI; AT NEW DELHI ; • ,' ' Reservedon: NovemberIS. 2011 • - "(GRID-A)' ' ' LA.APP.1195/2008(Village-BHARfHAL) •RANBIR SHARMA J, Appellant Ibrough: • Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr..TaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Mapi,Mr.H.S.VQrma;.Mr.JitinTewathia,Advocates MrJAnandYadav and;Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Ad\-ocate". Mr-iRaghiivinderGodara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Ne.gi andMr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Routand-Mr.B.K.Koiitray,Mr.M.Azamy\nsari, Advibcates; .'' t' ' Mr.Pankaj Vivek,'Advocate Mr.RaJesliYadav.Mr.,DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhosja andiMr.DharianjayMehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advpckle Mr.Sandeep l hakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocaie.' , •Mr.iN.S.Negiand WrJ'I.S.Raulela, respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) IJ1M10N0FINDIA&,iANR.' ' "' ^• ,Respondents' - •• Ihrough: Mr.SanjayJ^oddar,SeniorAd\'ocatewitii Mr.Sarrjuv r . • Pathkk,Mr;Mohitraa;Jadhav'andM.s.NaviinSwain, Ms:K.KaumiidiKiran. AdvoctitesIbr LAC/UOI • k MMjay Verma,Ms.Bknashaw Soni. Mr.Mukesh' Ku^u\Mr: SJC^SethivMr.PawanMatluu-Mr.Kunal •'j,• • . ShariTik,Advocaie.fcr DDA !..^./)FP.41z/2008•& civi'.No,4096/2U08 ('Cross-Objections);i APP ,, ; LA.APP.453/2008;LA.APk688/2fl08&,••0<!:No.5990/20i o'(Cross-()bied^ • ;! !-A.APP.(>97/2008& CM||No.4^3/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.701/2008& •CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-;Objection.s); L\.APP.768/200R; I.A.APP.770/2008; •J A.App. ll'JIj/riOOa& comiectedAppRiilscif'villiiBi! ' \ l.A.A|;ip,Nai/g4/;'.(n0&. corVnuci.edApp(;-jlsofViliatj'i:Biiwaiiiri ' ' IA.App. ,ll:i./?0.10&connt-CMdAppealsofViilaRCl-ochanpur " PuBL'loi^g I' • 1 ' s i: i' 12— LA.APP.771/2008 &. CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.772/2008; lAAPP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections); LAAPP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA-.APP.777/2008; LA.APP,782/2008 & ' CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.Na.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 .(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 179.5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.81^1/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections)^LA,APP818/2jQag:^•LA.M^Prm^008; LA.APP.820/2008; l.A.APP.829/2008r LA.APP.830/2008;M-1::7Y:?^P.832/2008; .LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008ri^A:APPTM5/2©e8r-LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections);' LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.70'9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978./2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572,/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM:No.1 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) LA.APIM032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008

1..A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.l048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,1050/2008 LA.APP.1051/2008& CM.No.]7262/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-rObjections);LA.APP.10k5/2008;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.l7259/2008(Cross-Obiections); J.A.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.Ng.623/2009(Cross-Objections);

1...A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & 'CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1086,/2008 & CM.No.244.8/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1.094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);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.ln"l/2008;LA.APP.l112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objection,s); LA.APP. 1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; LA.APP.l 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Obiections.); LA.APP.l 130/2008;'LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.:No.566/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LAAPP.1133/2008;LA.APP.l135./200S& CM.No,7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP. 1157./2008;LA.APP'.1158/2008 & CM.No.7774,^2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008 .LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008 LA.APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA.APP.l 173/2008 l.A.APP. 11 75/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008 LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM,No,6933/2009 (Cross-Obiectlonsl LA,APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP.l 186/2008& CM.No.7013,'2009 I.'V.App, No. 3195/?.008& conpRctedAppeaLsof VillageBharltial • . , ' - LA App, No, Z91/20.1.0& connectedAppealsof Village Bijv/asan b'\,App,No. & connecteclAppeal,';ofVillagoPochanour' ' ' Page2or29 • % (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.AI]P.l192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008; LA.APP.l 194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP.l 197/2008 LA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.y^PP,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.6957/200.9(Cross-Ob)ectioiis);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& C:M.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.'1252/2008 LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & •CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA:APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & ' CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; Ly\.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009;

1.A.APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA. APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.224./2009; (Cross-Obj ections); LA.APP.249/2009; I..A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009 & ' CM.No.970/20n LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/20Q9; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP.24.1/2009; 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.508/200'9; ' LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.l5/2010; • LA.APP. 13/2011; i LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP.r44/2009; LA.APP.f90/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; I..A.APP.295/2009; LA.AP?.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; A.APP. 1138/2008: 1"A.APP.1177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/200.9 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.20i/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.APP.510/2009; LA.APP.567/2009: LA.APP.48/20](); LA.APP.l 176/2008; (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the I..and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002,Village Bharthal,-Delhi) (GRID-B) •• I . • Reserved on: December

¶082011 . ^ Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). •' DEVENDERKUMAR , Appellant . Through: .Mr.R.S.'Loniar,Mr.Virendra Singh ,t.A.App. i\io ,1195/;'.00S& coiineelGdAppeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectudAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App Kio. 1.11/7:010& connected Appeals,of Village Pochanpu.' Pago 3 of 29 IS Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.RoLit and Mr.B.[<C.Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA.APP. L-A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ],A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 1,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.Sarijay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and iVIs.Navlin Swain, Advocates forLlOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Roun-ay, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOL • Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by LIOI Mr.Baiikey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates ^ • for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP., 221/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP, 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351,'2010 - LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 • LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010' LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55.'20] 0 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 I.A..APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. ,348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 . LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP, 407/2010 LA.APP, 408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 • L.A.'APP. 722/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.A.PP. 731./2010 LA.APP. 732,/2010 ,L.;A.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. 828,/2010 •LA..APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & • oss-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-t& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) ' ,; AND .••••• l.A,App. No & conncctGclAppeals of Villagn BharthnI LA.App, No, 291//010 & connc!c:tfifi'VppnalsofVillageBijwasan !,/\,App,iMo, llj/P.OlO & conncctod Appealsof VillagePochanpt'r , l-a(!e 4 of ;.9 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 lA.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D, Sharma, Mr.S.K.SoIanld and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh.Yadav,Advocatefor appellant iji R-22) • • versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain.,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. LA. AFP. LA. AFP. LA.APF. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. I.A.APP. l.A.AFF. LA,A]M\ LA.APF. l.A.AFP. LA.AFP, LA.APF. LA.AFP. LA.APF. LA.APF. LA.APF. LA.AFP. LA.APF. 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 65/20.11 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' LA.AFP, LA.AFP, LA.AFP. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. LA.APF. LA.APF. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. LA.APF. LA.AFP. LA.APF. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. 154/2010 16,5/2010 248/2010 260/2010 • 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010

63.9/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011

485./2011 525/2011 554/2011 . 155/2010 . 209/2010 . 249/2010 .261/2010 . 305/2010 .392/2010 ,397/2010 433/2010 57M10' 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 , 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APF ' LA.APF LA.AFP .LA.AFP LA.AFP, LA.AFP, LA.AFP. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. •La.apf. LA.APP-. LA.APP. •LA.APF. LA.APP. T-A.APF. LA.APF. LA.APF. LA.APF LA.AFP, LA.AFP, LA.APF. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. la.Xff. LA.AFP. LA.APF. LA.APP. LA.AFP. LA.AFP. L.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011

429./2011 522/2011 535/201 1 i.A..App.No. 1195/Z008& conncclcdAppealsofVillageBharlhal •LAi,^pp. l\lo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bljwasan l.A.App, No 111/2010&connecledAppealsofVillagePochanpur. It (Relating to Notification No. F.10f30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwaidNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE SUNIL C^AUR order'

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcreiorewith the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13.417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedoi by this commonorder. Acquisitionprocess lor planneddevelojpmentof 'DwarkaPhase-IJ' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 oi the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, peitaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Hstates includingvillages in question, i'C., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agiicultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three 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 l^lock A (level field -• with top soil) and @^12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(AAHthoutop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired l-A.App. No, ll!)!i/2008& connectedAppeals.ofVillaReBharthai, l/tApp. No. 29<V?-010& connnctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/2010&conn(!r;tedAppealsof VillagePochanpur " , , ^ Pape6of 29 n agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 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 Bijwaskn; whereas, refcrences relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, farther enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees l^fty 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 Homing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors,, (2011) 2 sec 246; Anjani Molu'Dessai ,vs\ State ofGoa and Ann,

(2010) 13 sec 710; Subh Ram and Ors. vs.. State ofHaryana and Ann,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs, Fs'. Special Tehsiidar (Land Acquisition) & Ors'., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patii

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Laiid Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of tndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia cfc Ann, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Jlaryana & Ors., 201:0(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of P.wtfah <1 Ori, 2011 (9) SCALl^ 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and. Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P:(C) No, 4143/2003' titled as Sml Indu Khorana Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011), 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, iy\./\pp. No. & connoctcd Appeals of Village Sharlhal i.A.App. No. ?.!34/7.010&• conncctod Appeals of VillagnBijwasan i.'y.App. No 1] 1/2010 & connfictcd Appftais of Village Pochanpur Gujarat and. Am., AIR 2001 SC 2.424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11,.SCC115-RisalSingh& Ors. Fx UnionofIndia&Am., 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union of India-and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and . Anr, (2008) 14 SCC745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Bevelopment Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745;. Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20]1) DLT 361; W.P.(C)'No.4284/2007-titledas SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRsandOrsvs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal A Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Smhil Kumar 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 BhuleRam UnionofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

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

¶7It was pointed.out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpm-broad gage railway line ofVillage Biijwasan passes through the land,of VillageBharthal,dividing'it into two parts, I.e., on-theeasternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi-UX.App. No. 111)5/2003&connectedAppealsof VillageBhai-iha! .lA.App.No. .B/1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillageIJijwasan ' lA.App. No. 11:1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagpPochanpur ''' ' in and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 1.00 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Siiiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City PM-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, .where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages.Bharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension

0.1 IGI Aiiport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndian Oil Depots and thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands of VillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired, for the development of Phass-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks i^/zra^/mapto highlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court' has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has • illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16^'' October, 2000 vide which land use of, the three villages in question was changed from agriculturaT to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceasedto be rural in view of the Notificationof 24^'^ October,1994,

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notificatidns have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P, Rama l.A.App. No, Xi9|j/:^008 & connnctfld Appeals of Village Bharthal , !.A App..No.294/7.010& conneclGDAppnalsof Village Bijvv^asan • •LA.App, No. .111/^0.10& connected Appeal.sof VillagePochanpur Page; 9 of 29 2-0 Redd,& Ors. vs. LundAcquiskimOfficer,HyderabadAOra, (1995) 2see 305, which ha^j been considered-by the Apex eouit mits later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHmyamA Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingin view the developmentin the area overaperiodoftime Ind the same cajinot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not putthe land to any use, it vi'ouldnot mean thatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas'placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the .appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pnce reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown'outas has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, bccause Iheic is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued bccausc of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluDessaiI's. StateofGoa ' undAnr..(2010) 13 SCC 710,the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants arc the comparable'sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circlerates for detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. : II. Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by ,• • Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounsel for the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined-rates lixed by the Governmentfor' allotmentof alternate plots in the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land,'determinationof its market value is No. . No. 294/?.0.1.0&connectedAppeal.-,of VillageBIjwasan i-A..Af,p iMc.nj^ZOlOa connticledAppealsof VillagePochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamallcliaor alternativelyon the basis ofthe L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DcterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above. •

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited ofLA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds •a) Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the AM^ard No.26/2002-2()03 dated

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

7.7.2007) - . . , , • b) Does not accountfor the faci that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates,of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 yvas issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated 11-9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the laM' laid doMm by variousdecisionsincludingin one of the m.ore recent decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in ^ SangunthalaversusTahsildar.2010(3)see661. ' ' d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe land under..acquisiiion. e) Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the. trial Court whereasasper the law establishedby the Honble Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakird Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No..5475 of 2007. The • Llon'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigher rate should'notbe disregardedin , LA.App. No. 119V2008& connncvcdAppealsofVillage DHarthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage liljwasan LA^App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 1] of 29 case the average sale price is lower. Further in An]ana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the. Supreme Court has also hdd that the highest of the exemplars and not by-averaging of different types of sales transactions should' be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied, upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land, is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and X13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the km laid down by the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court including in Subh Ram. v.?. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence,, the impugned judgment •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 , framed on 27.2.2007.' g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for land use change show that' in future land, can be 'subjected to residential, cornmercial ^and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"' amendment' of the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land, is situated, was deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there.. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down 'in AIR Supreme. Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and .Anr v^. Union of India and refusedto considerthejdct that the developmentin • the area has a direct 'effecton the price that a willing purchaser would pay for the subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent 'No. 2 '- had also l-A-^^pp. No.1.195/2008& connccled Appeals of VilluBG Bharthal . LA.App. No. ZSt/XOlO& connficledAppealsof Village Biiwa.'ian LA.App. No. .111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur Page 12of29 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about 6 lakh and concluded that the [saidland is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of }>yvarka Phase

¶11It is reiterated that the land use ofVillage Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. • I) Ignored Notificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish . the commercial potentialityofthe said land In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was held,that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got 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 acquired 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 A quarters.As aportionofthe landis beingconsideredas ^^ house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture.

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

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadWncedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof !.A.app,IMo. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal . l.A./}pp. IMo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan , No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur uibanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh DaitatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major Cyeneral) Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellants-are comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. 'Ihus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatem.arketvalue for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals. 15; Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sarijay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Lewd AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence ior determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special lancy of the purchaserand other factors,namely,nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia,-2002(62) DRJ 227, Satpai & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423;; Lai Chand w. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009).15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushU Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was:.urgedthat sharp increase . i)i price m a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explainedby producingin evidence the seller l^.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal jV\.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVlllafje'Bljwasan I .jJ\.App.No. lU/7.010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' ' , • Page 14 ol 29 /l''' and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Imowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the•sale mstance of 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- ; , DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court mLai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidmateBench ofthis Courtin'SmhifKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra):

¶16So fai as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimum n^dicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas-on 1' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously ; determined by the Reference Court,_ as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scopefor fortherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired •lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RelerenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation 12% - • per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. , 17. After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon •1ecoid and the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ; of"'^hecomparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling l.A.App.No, llP5/?.008&connncteciAppealsof VillageBharth-jl i-A.App,No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBIjwasan IA.App. Mo, 111/2010&connectedAppealsof villagePochanpur Page 15 of seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionofpotentialvalue ofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands • .•• , reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryam & Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquired'landvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, •. '''^^^giousor 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;

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants ofbuildingsto beput up on that land;.

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsorthe likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose; existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, .A health care centres, or the like in the surrounding ' - areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersof buildings,if builtoh the acquired land; and ,=

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for budding purposes, to specifyafew:" f

¶181he potentialityofland for the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large number of factors. I^'or the said puiposc, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for tiA.App. No. .1195/2008& connected/VpptnilsofVillage Bharthal < l'.A.ApR.No. ?.94/2010&connectedAppwaisof VillageBijwasah . • LA.'Apfi.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ^9 which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent ' events to. sbnie extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra).While reiteratingthe relevantfactors 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 appellantscould not be a groundto discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

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

¶714Ihe legalpropositionwhichemergesfromihe decisionsreliedupon on 'behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are -• similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no, justification for reducing the compensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarl}/situatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the , Apex Court in Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage, - zl. Apex Court in Vailiyammai(Supra),while takingnote ofihe fact that the acquired land was: situated in close, vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards developmeint charges was improper. The-pertinent . ~: observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- . I,•\.App,iMo. 1.1.55/2008& conncctedAppealsofVillage Bharlhgl IA.App, No. 294/2010& conncclndAppealsof-VillageBijwasan MA.App, Mo, 11.1/201,0&'conneciGdAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pago 17 of 29 , "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is adiona fide transaction, M'ill he considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values' disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-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 Pati! (Supra), which are as follows;- , "// is well settled that geniiine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value, or utility taken place between a willing vendee and. the yvilling vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed bet-ween '-easonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. fOTVG'Q (Supra), are as under:- • y "Priinaidly, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in. surrounding area, availability of 'la.nd.for developm.entin the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas. unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices ' would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts orjumps. lA.App. No. ].1.95/2008& connccted AppRalsof Village Bharllial tA.App-No.2.94/2010& connccted .'ippealsof VIllaRG Bijwasan l.A,App. No. 1]1/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochar,pur Page 18of29 \ • On the other hand, in urban or semi-Urban areas, where the developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for, land, 'the escalations-in prices have touched even 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 marginally at a-nominal rate of !%> 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 only around halfof it, that is about 5%o 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 increase to be appliedwoulddependupon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determiningthe market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved,market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidencedby sale transactions or acquisition),where there IS no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the rdied-on-sale . transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the: subject acquisition by only a-fewyears, that is upto four, tofive years. Beyond that it may, be unsafe, even if if:reiates to q neighbouring land. What may he a', reliablestandard if the gap is only a. few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market value of a land, acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or ' i.A.App.No. 1195/200!?gi connnctndAppaalsof VillageBh'artha!'. ' - •iAApo. No. 7.94./2010& connectedAppealsofVillageEijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/.7.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePocnanp',ir " acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the. ^rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom, the likelihoodofoccurrenceof varyingperiodsofstagnationin. pricesorsuddenspurts inpricesajfectingthe verystandard ofincrease. " .

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin SlateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporationYmiDQ.(Supra),regarding eomputation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.What was.saidby the Apex CourtinliSIDC (Supra) is as-under:- When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different •situationaladvantages)are acquiredfar the samepurpose, sav for farming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe sam:e notification." -5. Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal., Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwa.miSatsangBeas had putchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre. • 26. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which :i; are basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha Swam.iSatsang, Beas mrespectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePocha.iipurretlectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Hvidendy, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds lA.App. N.o. 1.1.95/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal tt-App.No. 2S4/20.10& connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan . . ' I^App. No. .1:11/2010&-connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' \ • ^^ • . k '21' (Kx.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thbreby, the entire land of the sale exemplais—Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the nature and 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.Thereiore,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-174to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeofthese agriculturaland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/verideeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited trom him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. -, No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on,

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamuipui was discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. • ' 27, In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto their acquisition,but ithas come in evidence _ that the acqun-edlands were being used for.agriculturalpurposetill their, acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing I.A.App. No. 1.I9V2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBhartfial ' • •LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 1.11/2010&-connectedAppealsof Villagepcichanpur 'o f.n market price of the land in question would pay such athigh 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 (l^x.PW-1/4 to Iix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-l/il) reUed upon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosing exorbitantprice of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.?W-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (lix.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the lanabut the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated-as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

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

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of marketvalue of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. RamReddy and Ors. R Land Acquisition\Officer Hyderabad Urban Developnumt Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) "SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be\the determination,ofthe marketvalue of the acquiredlandwith. buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale oj-^^plotsin a well developed,layoutin the neighborhood l/\.,App. No. ,1,iy5/2008& connectedAppcalsofVillage Bhartlial . ' ' LA.App. No. 234/2010& conncctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. .Ul/2010a connectcdAppnalsof VillagePochanpi'jr PaEe22of,?.9 m: 3:1 m il. orM'hetherit he the deterininationofthe 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, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes o.vailahle, then what,could be done is tofind,out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(1) ofthe LA. Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard A small percentage increaseto be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the.method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidence,of sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate dem.and, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA alteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai .Chahd^ (Supia), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment :• ^ ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determinmg the market value of the ; : . adjoining undeveloped freehold lands..Following the dictum of Lai Chand (Supra),acoordinate:Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Smhil Kumar (Supra), has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands:as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of ,• r l,A.App. Mo..l.l,9:V2008&conncctndAppealsofVillageBhartlial ' • i-A.App-.No. 2'M/m.O&connocfcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan lAApp. No, 11.1/20.1.0&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur •9 the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is reiquiredto 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.Sarijay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the yeai 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the • Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancementgranted by the Reference Court is unjustified. j3. Aioresaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dicl^um of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra),,cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincrease method 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 a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap;is ofonly ofafew years,may becomeunsafe ^nd unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIIS ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate' .|7\.App.No. .n9ii/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal f.A.App, No. 294/2010&conncctedAppeals'ofVillageBijwasan ' ' l7\.App.No. lJ.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur P24 of escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearb}^land ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned • senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector'had urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi!Kumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentialit)'' of the acquired land over and above the market value •determ-inedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsot the respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be. seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agricultural,land in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%0'perannum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date offixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. 1''April,'2000till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notilrcation in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecaus^the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by'virtueo|^^otificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in.these three villages in question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994 the land use ol the acquiiedland had changedbiit that by itselfis not sufficientto l.A.App.No. 319V2dG8&connfictedAppealsofVillageBliarthnl I.A,App. No. y_94/2010&, co.nnoctfidAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. ]11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur presume thai the acquired lands had gained potentiality for Ixing consideredas developedlands. The evidence.ledis lacldngon the vital aspectoftlierebeingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands mquestion. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang.Beasheavilyreliedupon by theappellantsdisclosethat the sale ofdie said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges fi'om the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, tlie acquiredlands were put to.agriculturaluse. Had there been' increasein pricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then , appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on^diersale instancesin the area HI question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the .saleofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village SaiTtalklia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Smsang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalklja(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/ll) cannot^be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale mstances. Therefore, in view of the aforc-referreddictum ofthe , Apex Court in Baryana State IndustrialDevdopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded tor the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agricultural-land in I5elhi. which generally factors in the rise of price due to, higher •potentiality. Taking note of the fact-that there is agap between what W.App. No..I.a/20.10&connectfidAppealsofVillagePochanpur • ' • « would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalprice has been held ,to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushUKumar(Supra)and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken b}/ coordinate Fiench of this Court in the 'aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and /fMrna/'(Supra).

¶381his Court is of the considered view that the Refei^ence Court hi the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon-the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question. Findingof the ReferenceCourtinmatterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there beingno evidencethat the potentialand the situation ol the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpjotentiality.ofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 • Irom Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part 11, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof this Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigher'buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDv/arkaPhase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the lA.App. No. 1.195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhol iy\.App.No, 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijvyasan • IA.App. No;111/2010&conneclodAppealsof VillagePochanpur • ' settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mina NausherwmKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the pass,b,lilyofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up buddingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion 7".^ sufficientto hold that the_ acquiredland had a ui mg potentialityand proceedto determine its market va ue tadng into accountthe increasein price attributable losuch buildingpotentiality." "

¶39Consideringtlic fa6t that it would be very difficultto proyidea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby .uniformlyapplying,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 VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal ,md VillageBijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Srnhil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of ll,e aforesaid locational advantages providmgahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalue assessedby the• ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bharthaland Village , 3iiwasa,r.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwtflr , • tlie appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof A.App. No. .T.I..1./20.10&connectedAppcai.sof VillagePochanpur Fase 28 of 29 V* the appellants of Village Pochanpur^arealso allowed to tlie extent indicatedabove. Thus, the maitet value of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@^le.SO.OOO/-per^^h%hgfor the Category'A' land and @?14,69,600/-perbSJforthe Catetory'B'' lands in queslion. " '

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siaiiitorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder vs, UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,excepttor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi winch periodol delayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶421he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof •n the aforesaid terras with directioji to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General oi this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE r O'i-L o"i f • LA.App. No. .1195/2008&connoctedAppealsofVillageBharthal •lAApp. No. 234/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan LA,Ap. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pago 29 of 29 - -f-IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR.SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.-AmitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash, • . Ms.SmitaMaan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathiaj Advocates • ,Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. . . Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S..Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr,H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, •, Advocate for Mi-.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & AM. Respondents Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. Amita Singh, • Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth,- Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR - ^ ORDER

12.0L2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correctiom). This is an applicationfor seeking typographical correction in Orderof6^'' January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 • . Page 1 p.'-" % ki ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas aheadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants.' The typographicalen'or pointedout by Uie respondentin the decision of 6'" Januaiy, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aloiesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha", whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis ^.llovvedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha' in paragraph _ °fLA.App.No,1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correcfionsbb Ganriedout foitliwith. • • ' . In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof {'• b JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb i4.App.N0. 1195/2008 c JUDGE

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November jj^, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 830/2008 ATTAR 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.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav,Mr.Deepak Khosla, IVdr.SamitKhosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mf.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, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR