Daya Chand & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No.1195/2008,titled as 'RanbirSharma vs. Union of India & Anr. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb li L-HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NE\W DELHI LA, APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SliARMA . Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate; Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raglmvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate • Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMi-.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mi.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for MnR.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. • Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,MrMohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Naylin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates fpr,LAC/UOI • Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mir.B.ankey,Bihari"Sharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomerK.^Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: KON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.00012 C.M. Appl'^o, 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice .A.App.No. 1195/2008. . , Page 1 ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas aheadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typogiaphicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'" Januaiy, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aiaresaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants:Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthattliereferenceto 'perblgha'in pai-agraph no: 40 of LA.App,No: 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe^cairriedout forthwith. In viewof the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 12, 2012 plcb 'AApp.No.1195/2008 tSuNILGAUR) JUBGE, Page 2 % IN THE HIGH COURT .OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November IS, 20 J1 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 . , i-' (GRJD-A)> LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHAETHA,L) RANBJR SHARJSIA ; ' ^ .....Appellant ,Through: Mr.B.S.Maan," Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita rvdctan,Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr;Anand Yadav and Ms.Aiiita Toraar, Advocates, Mr.Rohlas, Advocate. iMr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate , -Mr'^N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate MnS.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates, Mr!:PankajVivek, Advocate MriRajesh Yadav.Mr.Deepak/Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhanarijay MehlaAvat,Advocates , ,. ' MriH.S.Rauiela, Advocate Mril.S.Dtihiya, Advocate MriSandee'p Thakh)jr. Advocate M[r;AtuITripathi, Advocale. MrjjSl.S.Negiand Mr.FLS.Raiilela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus •UNION ()F INDIA&' ANR.''' ' . - .Respondents' ' • , i, . • : ; '•• 'llirough: Mr,SanjayPoddar,SeniorAd\'ocatewith Mr.Saajay Patlaak, Mr.lvlohitrac Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain. • MS'.K.Kauniiidi KiraiT.Advocates for I,,/\C/UOI, Mr.kjayVernia,Ms.BecnashawSoni. Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr S.R'.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Matliur, IVlr.Kunal Sliarma, Advocate foi" DDA !..'\.APP.4i2/2008 & ClVl.No,4096/2!;)0.S:(Cross-Objections). !.,'\.APP..-102/2008; ].A.APP.453/2008;LA.AP!',688/2008& 'a.lNo.5990/2010'(Cross-Objections); : i.A.AlT.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i/20C8& CM.No.5l0/20()9 (Cross-Otjectibas); I.A^APP;768/2()OR; ' 1.A.APP.770/2008; • , • ' • ' ; • ^ , I.A.A?p. & conncctedAppfiiilscif Viiliigi!Bharihyl iA.Arjp. No./94/?0]!0 & coniiuci.edAppeals of Village; ISiiwyscin 1A.App. ;\io. .1.1:i./?n.lOfi connr-tuidAppealsof ViilaRc.-l-othanpiii-j cf jg LA.APP.771/2008 & :CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & :CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APPJ^5/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (g]:Dss=Qhjectiofts)^fA^J^^ & CM.Nb.931/2009 ; (Cross-Obiections);CLA.APP.8Q5/2008L>i:::CAPP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008& CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 .(Cross-Objections); ]lA..APP.818/2008;LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA:APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (CrossiObjections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008•& CM';No.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-Obiections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008 :• (X/ross-Objections);LA.XPP.1031/20088c CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008 ]..A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& •CN-iNo.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 (CrGss-Objections);Ly^..APP.l 052/2008 LA.APP.1053/2008&' GM.No.416/2009(Cross-Gbjections);LA.APP.1054/2008& CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP-.l655/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& • CM.No.752/2011 (Crbss-Objections);• LA.APP.1058/2008& CM..No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objection3); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & ' CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA:APP.1074/2008 & • CM.No.-623/2009 (Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.1075/2008; LaUpP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); •LA.APP.1084/2008&' CM.No.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086/2008 & dM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.6]9/2009 (CrossyObjections); LA.APP.1093/2008; A-APP.1094/2008; 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. 1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.Nd.3828/2O09(CrosspObjections);.LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009(Cros^-Objections);LA.APP.1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1115/20()8; LA.APP.l116/2008; LA.XPP.l121/2008 LA.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP-1129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeclionsj LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM,No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA./^PP.l 135/2008 & CM-.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008' (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1140/2008 ' LA.APP.1156/2008;LA-APP.1L57./2008;LA.APP.1158/2008& •CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1159/2008; LA.APP.l 16172008; LA.APP.l 166/2008 ' .LA.APP.l167/2008 & ' CM.No:802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008 LA.APP.l 170/2008; LA.APP.n71/2008; LA.APP.ll72/'2008; LA.APP.l 173/2008 ; - LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP.1 178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008 LA.APP.1182/2008;LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933./2009(Cross-Objections) . I.A.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.11,85/2008; LA.APP,!186/2008& CM.No.7013,'2009 ; \ .. : . .: IA.App. !Mo. n9[j/?.00,8& conncjctedAppealsof VillageBharthcil ; LA.App. No. £i corinGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan • ' • LA.App. No. 1.1.1/2010St conneclGclAppealsofVillagePochaiiDur ^ Page 20129 % (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; •LA.APP.1 191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008; LAlAPP.H94/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2008& .GM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP, 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203./2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008 LA;Ap!p.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP.1223/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& "CM.N6.6957/2009(Cross,^Objections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.Nq.3841/2009(Cfo$s-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008;LA.APP.1252/2008; LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2.008; 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.AP:P.42/2009 & :CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.AP'P.73/2009 & ! GM.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; LAiAPP.l'09/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA. APIM 62/2009; LA. APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.APR367/2009;, LA.APip.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APR511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009;

1.A.APR404/2010; LAiAPP. 137/2009; LA.APP.H3/2009; LA:APP. 187/2009; LA!APP.198/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.2'03/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009&' CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.2] l:/2009; LAJAPP.220/2009; ' •LA.APP..222/2009; LA.APP.224,/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & (Cross-Objktions); LAiAPP.241/2009; LA.APP.245./2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.kPP:437/2009; LA. APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.ApP.13/2011; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; , LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009;, LA.APP.513/2009; LA. APP.45/2010; i.A,APP.1138/20'08; .A.APP.Il77/2008; LA.APP.120L/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP.201/2009; CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM-.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; LA.APP.45 8/2009; LA. APP.481/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.506/2009; LA.APP.51072OO9; LA.APP.S67/2009; LA.APP.48/2010; LA.APP.1176/2008; (Relating to Notificatioh No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued lunder Section ;4;iof the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthai, Delhi) • ' ' (GRID-B)' • ' • : , ( , . , ^ Reserved on: December 08. 2011 ... - Pronounced on: January 06, 20]2 LA.APP.294/2010.(VIBLAGE.-BIJWASAN). •• . ' DEV15l|jDERKUMAR , ,' . Appellant , Through: .Mr.R.S.Toniar,Mr.VirendraSingh LA.App. iMo .1195/;',008& connectod Appealsof Village Bharltiai i,A.App. No. 294/2010& conneclndAppRalsofVillagei^ijwasiin LA'.App No. l.U/7.010& conncctudAppealsofViliajjePochanpu.' Advocates Mr:S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.R.Roiitray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI &! ANR LA.API|. i;,A.APli. LA.APP. LA.APll. la:api| LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP,. ],A.APPi. LA.APP-LA.APP;. I.A.APP:. !.,A.APP' i.a.appI la.appI LA.APP; LA.APP; -LA.APP, LA.APP) LA.APPj 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2.010-360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010. 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Thriough: Mr.SanjayPoddar, SeniorAdvocatewith ; . Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates . : fbr 'DOI/LAC ' Mr.S.K.Solajiki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K, Routray, Advocates in appeals , • filed by UOI, Mr.Vii-endra Sin^i, Advocate in R-68, '7i . ; & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates • forDDA. : 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.406/201.0 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010. LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2Q10 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.yVPP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP; 223/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.A.PP. 289/2010 lA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 .LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP.-3 57/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 .LA.APP, 407/2010 LA.APP; 588/2010 LA AFP. 125/2010-LA.APP, 731/2010 LA.APP, 764/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 C.M.lisfo.964/2011 (Cross-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. .LA.APP. & 51/2010

55./2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726,'20!0

732./2010

828./2010 (Relatingto Notification!,No.F;10(30)96-L&'b/LA/1341.7dated 13.12.2000 ;. issued under Section 4 (^f the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-r2003,VillageBijAvasan,Delhi) • ' AND , M.App. No. Iias/'ZOOB& conncctedAppcal.5rifVillage Bharthnl lA.App. No. 2M//010&iconncctGdAppealsofVliiageBIjwasaii . ' • . ' - . ' !7\,App.iMo. conneclcdAppGal.5ofVillagePochanpur ' " ' i-'aRc4of 7.9 • Oy. (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on.: January 06. 2012 l.A.APP.111/2010(VlixAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAiM AND ORS. Through: ' .....Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rdut,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, Advocate for appellantin LA.App.No..61,64, 65/2011) . . Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant hi R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Tl;irpugh: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Naviin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal , Sharmaand Mr.Somer.K.Seth,Advocates forDDA. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. J.A.APP. LA.APP. LA'.APP. ];A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. -LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 .;3 95/2010 !420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011 LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA,APP. LA:APP. LA.APP. LA: APP. •LA(APP. LA:APP. LA.APP. LA.AipP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010' 248/2010 260/2010 • 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. la:app: LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. •lA.APP. ' LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP:

1.A.APP. .LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010-61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201] 521/2011 526/201 L 591/2011 . 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 53572011 LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, la:app. LA,APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, I.A.App. No, 1195/2008&connoctodAppealsofVillageBharthai: J.A,App,No,-294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan •I-A.App No 111/2.010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpu'r. •% (Relating to Notification No. F..10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 oftheLaiid AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award|No.30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'PLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ; order:.' .1. Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensation,is soughtjby the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith tlie consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing of these .appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoiificaiionNo.F.l0'(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planned,.developmentof 'DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenped with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under'Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining-to vast tract of agricuitural land in one compact block comprisingofthirteen Revenue Estates inckiding.villages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. •• Agriculturalland,:ofthe appellants herein in the aforesaid three villages;stood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, ; i.e., y\\yard No.26/2002-200.3; Award .No.28/2002-2003;andAward ' : . . No.30/2002-2003granting'compensation@'?13.82 lacs per acre for ^ •: Block 'A' (level field.-iwithtop soil) and @?12.32'lacsper acre for Block'B|'(withouttop\soil). •

¶4Dissatisfied-withthe assessmentofmarketvalue oftheiracquired L-A.Apf), IMo. 119;i/20t)8&connectedAppcals.ofVillaBeBharthai: '. ' . ; 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan •' ' j I.A.App:. No. ni/2010& connectedAppealsof VillageRoch^npiir - • " agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ? 15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ^13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, refcrences relating to Village Pochanpiir have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants OfVillage 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, Kamataka Housing Board vs.-Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors\, (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Anr., (201.0) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sanguitthaia

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

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; i ' • . . Rama 'Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia <1 A\nr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Bass vs. State of flaryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas State of Punjab Ors., 2011 (9) SCALK 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik i-'s. 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 Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 S^^C 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand. ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, LA.App. Mo, & conriHctfidAppealsofVillage Bharthal lAjApp. No. 7.9'l/;'.010& connc!ct(!dAppealsofVillagp.Bijwasan •A.App. No 1.]1/20.1.0S connc.ctndAppealsof VillagePochanpur • . Pape7of29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Ilaryana State Industrial ^ DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 115-RisalSingh & Ors. UnionofIndia& Ann, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. ofIndia and Anr,, (2009) 15 SCC 769; Genera! Manager^ Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsiMar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tmtdon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar ra. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Fs. Union of India & Anr, 176(20;i1) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & vinr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)byLRsandOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpar& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kimtar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.z011, LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010 (17.0) DLT 371.

¶6On the strength-ofthe aforesaid decisions,at the ver)' outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the jocationand situationot the acquiredagriculturalland has to be In-st understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedtxj the near iliturealone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.lomar,counsel for appellantsi.hat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line ofVillage Biijwasan passes,through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingif into two parts, i.e., on-the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Anport,New Delhi l-A.App. No, 119.V2003&coiinectndAppealsof Village Bhaiihal iA,/Jpp. No. 2H/1/2010& connnctndAppealsof Villageliijwasan i.VApp. IMo. 111/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillaBePochancur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI 'Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the westernside of VillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the developmejit of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslm'^\3to highlightthat the boundary or Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16^'^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages m question was changed from agriculturaF to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24^" October,1994, • 9. It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo/Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. . No, U95/,V008&connoctGdAppaalsofVillageBharthal ..No, 294/;>010&connectpdAppealsof VillageBijwasan . No, .],1]/2010&connectedAppeal.sof VillagePochanpur I.A.App !.A App LA.App Redd!&Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex eourt in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 20]0(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod oftime and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot mean thatthere is no buildingpotentiality. JO. Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma.learned counsel for die appellantsupon the seven Sale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely bccause of Uie said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, bccause there is no basis to conclude Uiat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because-of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluDesmi vs. StateofGoa imdAnr., (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 are the comparable sale instances, thereibre, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates./circlerates fbr detemiiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. U. Assessmentof market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.C;odara.learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Governmenttor allotmem of-alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepmg in view the location,situationand poicntiantyof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is -A.App-No.11J/2010&connnctedAppealsofVillagGPochanpur ' , • " Page 10 of 2!) sought bn the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and • Village Samalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the j. • , ' , . developed lands in :Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DctermijiedRates (Pi3Rs)as referredto above.

¶12In: the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited , 'i of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds:- a)^ "Ignores the "acknowledgement on the part of the [respondent about the yiM^ard No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.J0.2002 •heing flawed In the course of the \proceedings.Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. •(Referred tO' in cross-examination of appellant dated \7.7.2007) [ '. • •\ •' , ' b)\Does not accountfor the fact, that the Public Notice • dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the: rates of land in \the area for m'pre than 15years before the Notification under Section ^ of the Land AequisitionAct, 1894 was Iissued. , ' cj IValuing the 'land on the -basis of the letter dated '11.9.2001 issued by the GovernmentofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid, down by various decisions includingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversusfahsildar. 2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per \esta.bl.ishedlaw.,hasto be considered,beforeascertaining the value ofthe land under.acciuisition. e) •Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law I established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakird Patil versus Special Land • : 'Acquisition.Officer, Civil Apeal'No.5475 of 2007. The : : • Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deed,showinghigherrate shoiildhot be disregardedin , LA.App, Mo, .ll9';/2008&ccinnfictedApptialsof VillageISharihal • . > l,\.App.''No.?!M/2C)10&connectedAppealsofVillageUijwasan IlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur. ^case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana . Molu Desscii W. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the ;Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the : exemplars and not by averaging of different types of ! sales transactions should : he considered while \adjudicating, upon compensation upon a certan land. f) \Relied. upOn 'f judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC \No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject . land while igrtpring. 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 down by the Flon'ble Supreme Court Jnchtding in\ Subh Ram vs. 'State of Haiyana 2010(1) \see 444. As ,a consequence, ,the impugned judgment •rejvsed to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 \fram:edon 27.2.2007. ' ' .' g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land, although, vide INotificationof^the MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the Iland use of Yillage Dhool Siras and Bharthal was v, Ichanged and. these areas ceased to be agricultural and \came now uhder the urban'^boundaries of.Delhi State. IThe masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor \land. use change show that. in. future land, can be Isubjected to \ residential, ' commercial . and, other \pennissible iises. It is also pertinent to m.ention that the •appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74'^ amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1:6.1993 IX A, by -virtue of whiqh the M.unicipal Corporation. Act was . amended and the area where the land is situated, was • • deemed a municipal area and. the miin.i.cipalCounsellor was elected from, there.. No Panchay.dt •elections were held in. the area.. h) Refused to dpply the la.w laid down in AIR Supreme Court:3467, Ranvir Singh andfAnr v^. Union of Ind.ia. • and refusedto considerthejdct that the developmentin \t.he area has \a\ direct effect ori the price that a willing purchaser would,payfor. the.subject land.

i) 'Ignored the fact that Respondent No. .2 ' had also LA.Apr. No.1195/2008 & connccted Appeals of Village.Bharthal LA.App, No. 291/2010& cqnnGcledAppealsofVillageBijwasan" . ; ' LA.App. No. 111/2010&cdnnectfidAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 12 of Z9 ; :.A.App ' I.A.App, l-A.App, auctioned similarly situated: land as 'commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the ^saidlandis Whollyunderdevelopedland. 'j)\ The valuationof the subjectland'is even lower than the Ipre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 Ifor similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accoun : the use of tM.land althoug development purposes of ; reiterated that the land use the possibility of change of k the land as acquired for IShvarka' Phase II. It is of Village Dhool Siras and , Bharthal was uchanged and these areas ceased to be I agriculturaiahd came now '\under the urban boundaries ! ofDelhi State.; • . I - • - I) ; Ignored Notifications dated. 16:10.2000 and 24.10.1994 ; a.lthough they clearly establish . the comm.ercial !potentialityofthe saidland.\ln Sangunthalav. Tahsildar \(LA), (2010f3'SCC 661 it ^v.as heldthat thepurposefor \which land {is acquired is-d' relevant factor. While :determininglvalue of the property acquired the fact !whetherthe land hasgot building,potentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate'vr in near future 'needs to be considered. ! . • / .' • ml The presence of a numberIof buildings on the lands acquired and [the said lar .buildings are \o be treated ;were acquired, for purpose quarters. As a portion of the d being occupied by the as house sites. The lands of putting up residential land is being considered as •house site, the. adjoining la^nds have the potential of ' \heingputin betjteruse as housesites in the nearfiittire.''

¶13In :the brief synopsis^by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. o47/2009,the factual details have beeip providedwith a praverthat the ^ appellantsofthis appeal^be treated at ipar with the co-appellantsofthe otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.| : 14. Supplementingthe,aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urgedty Mr.AnaridYadav, Advocatethat the,effectof ;mo. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal i .' ) , No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan , • i ' • No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochaopur, " . pg ^3 urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar ra. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General) & Ors, Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-_ Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale instancesreliedupon bythe appellantsare comparableandoughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatem.arketvalue for the acquired (ands is sought in'these appeals. !5. Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per SectionSf Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence [or determination of the market value unless, and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect-market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsinJai Lai w. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.., .

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.65'6/2008titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase m price,in a short period cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. Il9r)/zooa&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthai LA.App. No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBiiwasan LA.App, No. connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir ' PapeWofZa and the purGhaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeof the usual pievalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha S\mmi Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO ratcs/Pre-DetcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBench ofthis Court in Sushi!Kumar (supra)andRai Singh (supra).

¶16So (ar as potentialityof the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectopthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the ^ minimu]iiindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on r'-' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously deteimined by the Refeience Court., as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthere IS no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired Jands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RcfeienceCourt:whiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation(^p, 12% per anniim and the same deserves to be broughtin line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectioristo the aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringtlie rival submissions advanced by, both tlic sides and uponcloseperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,liie evidenceon . recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue .ofthe comparablelandis thepricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling : lAApp. No. 11.%/2008&conncctedAppealsof VillageBharth,i ^ ' , LA.App, No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillasaBijwasan LA.App. No, a co'nnectcKlAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' , • % scllej-and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass ra. State of Hasyasta dS rs., 20K)(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiotis or any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityof the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) possibilit)' of obtaining water and electric supplyfor \ occupants of buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absence ofstatutory impedimentsor the likefor using the acquired landfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of higlnvays, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or closeproximity ofthe acquired land;

(vi) bene.fits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired d.ancl which m.ay become • available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands around the acquiredland or the acquiredland itself being m demand for building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶18• 1he potentialityof land for the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not.only have to. bear in mind the purpose .for IA.App. No. .lir«/7.008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal 1A.App. No. 294/2010& connGctndAppi'alsofVillageBijwasan W.App. No. 1.11/20.10&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur . Pggg which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Aima'Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs, MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714'. The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on beliall 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 distance betweensimilarlysituated lands 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 acqun'ed the agriculturalland for a particular purpose. But. it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage, ^1. Apex Court in Valllyammal(Supra),while takingnote of the fact that the acquired land v-/as situated in close Vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was im.proper. ^Fhe pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App. No. 1155/2008& conncctRdAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. iMo. 294/2010& donncctedAppealsofVillage!Bijwasan LA.App. IMo. 111/2010&connGClcd AppealsofVillagePochanpur Pago 17 of 29 "\The legal pdsition is that even-where there are several exemplars withi reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar larids yyhoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. Biit where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are. markedly differmt, it can only lead to an inference that they are yvith 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 Patil (Supra), which are as . follows:- • . ,• "It is, well settled that genuine, and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land'under acquisition, or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the pgint •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 willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed'between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value." .

¶23Principles to determine the ma.rketvalue of the acquired lands as reiteratedby, the Apex'Courtin Oil amiNaturalGas CorporationLtd. fOiVGC) (Supra), are as under ;. "Primarily, the increase in land; prices depends on four i ' factors - situation of the land,, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in ;• 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 or jumps: ^ , IA.App. No. 1195/2008& connccledAppfiaisofVillageBharlhal ; i-A.App. No. 294/201G & connccted Appeals of Village Bljwasan I l-A.App. No. 131/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur # # On the other [hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the ; .development is faster, where,the demand for land is high and where thqre is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as , compared to,rifral areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the ; escalations in \prices have touched even 30% to 50% or • ^moreperyear,'duringthe nineties.OnJheotherextreme, in [remote rural areas where there was no chance of. any idevelopment' and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus -a significant difference in • \increases in' market value of lands in urban/semi-urban lareas and increases,, in market value of lands in the rural 'areas. Therefore if the increase' in market value in urhan/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5%) to 7.5%)per annum. This rule of thumb; refers to the general trend in the •nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a^ higher rate of increase, or any specific eyjdence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon : the same. ' • ' . • ,• Normally, recourse is taken to the mode'of determining tPie market value'byproviding appropriate 'escalation over the proved, market value, of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acqiiisition), where there is no evidence6f any'contemporaneous'sale transactionsor acquisitiqns ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is\ reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/dciquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew'years, that is upto.four to-fiveyears. Beyond that it .may be unsafe, even if it. relates to a. neighbouring land.- What m'qy be a. reliable standard if the'gap is only a i few years, may. become unsafe and unreliable standard. where the gap is larger. For example,for determining the inarket value of a land acquired:in 1992, adopting the annual ' increase method with, reference to a sale or LA.App. No. 1195/200f?iS(connficlsdAppealspfVillageBh'artha! . ' '..A.Apo.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsof'VillagoBijwa.san .. l.A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 19of29 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurts inprices affectingthe verystandard of increase. "

¶24'lliis Courtis mindfiilofthe dictum of tiie Apex Court in State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC) (Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by. adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- 'When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different siiuationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for f)nning oj a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value•with reference to previous status or situation should he avoided and 'a. uniform rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredimderthe same notification." IS. Uiidisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired'land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants'is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwamlSatsang,Beas had purchased,the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price' which varied from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW^-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)^vhich are basicallybetween one set ofco-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockofl^nd measuring18 Bighasand 6 : Biswas situatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds LA.App. No. .1.195/2008& coniiGctedAppaalsofVillage Bharthal i.A.App, No. 2!J<V201.0& connciCiQdAppealsofVillageBijwasan .-A.App, No. .l.:ll/2010& connnclndAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' Rape 20 of29' % P m i (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ^52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined b}^, the appellants.Ilad the purciiaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, dien it could have been elicited Irom 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 Swaini Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurptirvide Sale Deed executedon 25"^ March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin [.A. 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 ra. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe t]-eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. ^7, In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used foi" agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevEiiling LA.App. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageSharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur .market price of tlie land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court.the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (I'^x.PWMM to lix.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Bx.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ?1,76,55,172.41'per 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 (Ex.PW-^1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon ; including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale* exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question.

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

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy ami Ors. K •Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., \995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. IJcmever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market vaJ^e of the acquired land,with buildingpotentiality-with referenceto the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood \ , • 1A.App. No. 1,105/2008& connected Appealsof Village Bharthal I.A.App. No.294/.7.010& connected Appeals of Village Biiwasan I.A.App. No. l.l.V'201.0&connectedAppealsof VillageFochanpur Psge22of?.9 \ or M'hetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land, with buildingpotentiality with reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becom.es 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 of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of theAct Further, where no evidenceofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of build.ingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then wha.t could be done is to .fi.ndout the marketvalue of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(1) of the 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 basis ofevidenceto be. made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicating that there was no iiwnediate d.em.a.nd., as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chami (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment 1atcs/Pie-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chcmd (Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and SushU Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantIbr assessingthe marketvalue of :• lA.App. No. l.l,9.';/2008&connnctcdAppnalsofVillageBhartlial • • ' LA.App. No. 291/2010&connccfGdAppoaLsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/20.1.0&connHctedAppeal.sof VillagePochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueof the acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32|Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria,for assessing the market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villages for developmentof Dwarka Phase-L It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the l.and AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt • progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofa few years,ma}' becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap.is larger. In the instantease, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e.,'of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis o! sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No, ]19V2008& connectedAppealsofVillagp.Bharthal LA.App. No. 234/2010&connoctfidAppealsofVillage Bljwasan i-A.App. No. 111/2010&connected7\ppealsofVillagePochanpur PapG24of29 escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebcnch^ofthis Court in Sushil iTMmw-(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 potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so. by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%> per annum.Inthis view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minim,umprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the ReTere^TceC.oujt from the date offixationofthe minimumprice for the agricukuralland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April, 2000 till the date of Noiiiicaiion in the instant appeals deserves to be further Increasedor not. • .

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland >, peitaining to the-Notilication in question has been assailed bv tl'ie learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban,it is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use oi the acquiredland had changed'butthat by itselfis not sufficientto IA.App. No. ]19,S/2dC8&connectGdAppealsofVillagpBharthjii 1A.App. No. mpmo &connncl.dAppealsof Village Biiwa,san LA.App. No. ].1.1,7.010&connectedAppealsol VillagePochanpur presume ihat the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere,beingany development'inand aroundthe acquiredlands ui question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Syvami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, • 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been incieasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquiicd lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto.a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the quality:andpotentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(bx.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityot the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) caniiot^be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the aforc-feferreddictum of-the Apex Court in Haiyana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniform,rate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum.price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturahlandin Delhi, which generally,factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what i-A.App.No. 1195/2008&conncclfidAppealsof VillageBharthal ' ' ' .A.App. K'o. 294/;.ni0&connectMAppealr-of VillageBijwa.an App. No. 111/20.10&connectsdAppealsof VillagePochanp.r • PciSe26of29 would be expected, to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's miniraui-nagricultural price has been held L to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra). s

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's .minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question, rending of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGl Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots-and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part 1and 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 Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of I aioresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume;higher building potentialitybeing in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-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 buildingpotentiahtyin,the acquiredlands is the l.A.App. No. ,119::,/2008& connectedAppealsof Village liharllial lA.App, No. 294/2010&1 connectedAppaalsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. Mo, 1.11/2010& connectedAppeal.-;ofVillagePoclianpur PaBf!27of29 -scltled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sifficientto hold that the acquired,land had a bialdmgpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto account the increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentiality.."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea defniitevalue 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 uniformly applying the Government'sminimum ^ prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands dii^erentlyand so, appellanLsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil . Kumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providmgahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of , awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthaland Vilkige Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with •• the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof ^1^.APP,No. ll<V2008&conncclGdAppealsofVillage A.App.^0. .-010&ronnLKledAppealsofVillage • . • . • . •i-A.App. No. .1.11/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur % f the appellants of Village Pdchanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Ihus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthese three villagesin questionis'determined@?16,50,000/-per_>i^J"fSrth(3 Category \/\' land and @^14,69,600/-per bagha for the Category'B' lands in question. |v^-i

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siatutoiV benefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder w. UOI' 2001 (93) DLT 569 are gianted,'exceptlor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, Jor w^hichpenodofdelay no intereston the enliancedcompensationshall be paid.;!hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

42., Ihe above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof •in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar Genera! o! this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb .if VI- ^ r 0';?- JUDGE n lA.App. i\io. U95/2008&conneclodAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&corinocledAppealsofVillageBljwasan' IA.App. IMo. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pago 29 of 29

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November . 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 805/2008 DAYA CHAND & ORS. Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhoslaand Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verraa, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA COl^M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR