Sube Singh & Anr v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

29.03.2012 CM No. 5421/2012 (u/S 151 CPC) Delay of 517 days' in re-filing the accompanyingappeal is sought to be condoned by this application,which is supportedby affidavit of learned counsel for the appellant. Upon Notice, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates for respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively, state that only opposition to this application is that for the period of delay, the appellants ought not be granted interest on the compensation amount in the event of their succeeding in the appeal. Since the reasons disclosed in Paragraph No. 3 of the application does not display gross negligence, therefore, this application is allowed and the delay of 517 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned while making it clear that for the delayed period, the appellant shall not be granted interest in the event of succeeding in the appeal. LA.APPNo.80/2012 Page 1 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. T'i With aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of LA.APP. 80/2012 The instant appeal relatesto Village-Pochanpur,where vide Notificationof 13^^' December,2000, the land of the appellantstood acquiredunder Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned order of 10^^ May, 2010 while upholding the compensation amount awarded by the Land AcquisitionCollectorto the appellant,has denied any enhancement thereupon. Mr. SanjayKumarPathak,learnedcounselfor the respondent-UOI, statesthatthe subjectmatterofthis appealstandscoveredbythe decision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008 'Ranbir Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr.' rendered on 6^^ January, 2012, wherein compensation amount in respect of lands acquired in Village Pochampur has been enhanced to ?16,50,000/- per acre for the Category 'A' land and to ^14,69,600/- per acre in respect of Category 'B' lands. Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that case of the appellantis at parwithRanbirSharma(Supra). In the lightof above,this appealis allowedin termsof decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra) with statutorybenefits and proportionatecosts, while declining the interest for the delayed period. This appealstandsdisposedof in aforesaidterms. MARCH 29,2012/rs (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE LA.APPNo.80/2012 Page 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT'NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) , t I I LA.APP.1195/2008(mXAGE-BHARTHAL) RAMBIRSHARJ\4A Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit|Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita ' Maan, Mi.R.S.Verma, Mr. Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. ; Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.M.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla., Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thalchur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus LJNION 01' INDIA& ANR. ' Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay ; Pathak,Mr.Mohitrao.Vadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain, Ms.K.KaurnudiKiran, Advocatesfor LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma, Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA (Cniss-Obiections);LA.APP 452/2008- •llpp'69™np' ^ CM.No.5990/2010(Cross-Objections): rntfo LM No.4.,3/2009(Cross-Objections);LAAPP.70i/20()S& CM.NO.5I0/.009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/200ji; i.A.A|)i3.No. HU5/2008'& conncctedAppealsofVillageBharlhal I^.App. Mo. ?.9^;./?.010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I '.App,No. l:l.l/?.030&conncKled AppealsofVlllaBc;Pochanpur Page 1 ol 23 ^ CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Pbjections);LA.APP.772/2008- ^ CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.774/2008& r. (Cross-Objections); LA.APP:775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP!777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008& CM.Np.940/2009.(Cross-Objections)- L^-APP''784/2008;LA.APP.7S5/2008; LA.APP798/2008 & CM.No.^15/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APp!799/2008 & CM No 931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008& C^4.NoJ;795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.API?.814/2008 & CM.No806/2009 C:ross-0,bjections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP820/2008-T LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP,832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008' LA.APP.^844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APlj.873/2008& CM No 779/2011 J LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections)- CM No 7^/2000^' LAAPP901/2008; LA.APH915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008& r A f (Cross-Objections); LA.ApP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008- ^ Cl\'I.No.519/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP975/2008-J;f^P^??^6/2008;LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APPi.986/2008& CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.17340/2008 ; nOB LA.APP.1031/2008cfe CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections)- rVadd ^ CM.No.599/2009(CrossfObjections);LA.APP 1046/2008-LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008&CM,No.7851/2009 (Cross-Obiections)' r^APP I'n^^nnno ^ CM.No.420/2009(Crossjofejections);LA.APP.1050/2008; r \ ADD ^ CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP1052/2008' CVmo.416/2009(Cross-Ob,eiions);Lk.APP.1054;2t08i' CMNo752'2nn LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/20.08 & CM.No^52,2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.il058/2008& CM No 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CM No 17259/2008rCrn.JlbW V (Qoss-Objections);LA.IpP^OwS^ CM No <Cross-dbjecaons);LA.APP.l108/2008& "Ct I ' LA.APP. 1109/9008-r A APu innnnnc - CMNO LA.APP.,i";^"00^™'.US ^ r^vl. nK•i V ^ (poss-Objections);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CMNo3826/2000 iiiiiilSHis I..A,APP.lll37/200S&CM No 17283/2008fCrot^ Oh" LA.APPJ1156/2008;LA.APP.nsSgrfrpTP^ISZ'^;^-'^''''-'" (,Cross-Obj6ctions)-LA APP 1150/9008-'t a' Ann i *-M.No.7774/2009 LA.APP,ll|67/2008& CM No 802/200° LA.APP.1li70/2008-LA APP n71S"" =;0>'J®«'Ons);LA.APP.1168/2008; LA.APP.n75/2I:LA^P nS LA APP w'oi"'"'LA.APP,1173/2008;' LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP1183/700s/™'i1181/2008; LA.APP.1184/2008-LA APP 1185'9nn8 r '^^'2009 (Cross-Objections); "*• '^,'«'P-I1»5-2008:LA.APP.|1Is6/2008&CM.No.70]3/2009 ^ • r'-' • pp. c. JU/20a0&conjiBccedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ! : Page 2 of 29, . % LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 194/2008; LA.APP.l195/2008;LA.APP.1197/2008 IAAPP1202/2008'^A*^APP LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP.l202/2008,LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008"LA APP 1211/9008 LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& U\4.No.3M1/2009,(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008* LA APP 19S9/9noR-LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.I277SLAAPP 279900^ LA.APP.1280/2008;LA.APP.1281/2008 LA.APP. 283S' LA APP 284 200 LA.APP.33/2009; LA.A^s"^' LA.APP73/2009 & ^ (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 TAA-nn 'Tn' CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections)'LA APP 74/2009 LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No,953/2011 (CrtS LA.APP.l08/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009-LA APP 135/2009 LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.138/2009-l1aP^39S LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP 144/2009-LA APP 145/2009 .A.APP.1^62/2009; LA.APP.187/2009: LA.APP:iS9' lIaPW^S? LA.APP.1,97/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APP199/2009-LA APP 201/2009 LA.APR202/2009;LA.APP.203/2009;'LA.APP.2oiS& ctT7oS9 Cross-Obpctions);LA.APP.210/2009& CM.No970/2011 rCrossOhl.H^ LA.APP.2iI1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.AP]P.222/2009 LArp?22S LA.APR2p4/2009;LA.APP.227/2009;LA.APP.i30/2009&. CM No 7206/2009 Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP245/2009-LA APP 94fi/?nn^ •LA.APP.2^9/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP29^ LA APP'Sno' LA.IPP.4S' La'aPP489 2009-TA'applonnn^' LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.481/2009 rA A ' LA.APP.490/2009; LA.A.PP491/2009-TAAPP4QV9nnQ iiii m pii siii (Relatingjo NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/LcfcB/lU/13417dated 13 12 9000 (GRID-B) Resep^edon: December OR 7011 Pron^nced on: January 06. 20/ ? LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) OEVENDERKUMAR ' • I ^ Appellant Ihrough: Mr.R.S.TomariMr.VirendraSingh T' ^ VillageBharthal •AP,.. ^0, &connecvedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i } Advocates | i Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38,,, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI c& ANR :52/2010 ;56/2010 '100/2010 1242/2010 1282/2010 1287/2010 1295/2010 1346/2010 i350/2010 !354/2010 365/2010 . 360/2010 1405/2010 1409/2010 i723/2010 1727/2010 i750/2010 1964/2010 ;77/2010 i75/2010 & LA.APP. 11/2010 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 Respondents Through: JS-lr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate -with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filedbyUO'l. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.BankeyjBi|iarSharmajMr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forDDA. i ' LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.API?:.59/2010 LA.APR. 223/2010 LA.XpP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.AP?. 348/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.XpE.764/2010 LA.XPP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 22672010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&'BjfLA/i3417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-;2003,"VillageBijwasan,Delhi) •AND IA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal i-A App. No. 29,1/;'.OaO&iconncctedAppealsofVillageDIjwasan IA.App. No.':nj./2Cno&ItonnectedAppealsofVillagePochanour (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Prmpunced on: January 06. 2017. LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUr| SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: , •••••Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solanldand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16,20, 23 to26,29, 30, 33,36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to^^l) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.;61s 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant inR-22) i versus . union QFINDIA ANR Through: ; ; Respondents Mr.SanjayPoWar,SeniorAdvocatewith A4r.SanjayKuiriarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates forUOL/LAC| • Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. I 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. lH/2010 160/2010 22,8/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 • 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011 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. la.app. la.app. la.app. p. NO. ixi/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur La!aPP. 155/2010 LA.APP,^209/2010 LA.APPim9/2010 LA.APP.'261/2010 LA.APP. 305/2010 la.app. 392/2010 LA.APP. 397/2010 LA.APP. >433/2010 . LA.APP.;;|77/2010 la.app. 1540/2010 LA.APP. 741/2010 la.app. 784/2010 LA.APP. 61/2011 la.app. 117/2011 la.app. 129/2011 LA.APP. 521/2011 la.app. 526/2011 la.app. 591/2011 la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la.app. la,app. la.app. la.app, la.app. la.app. LA.APP. la.app. la.app. la.app, la.app. la.app. 156/2010 215/2010 •250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 .412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 Page S of zn (Relating; to Notification No. F.10(30)96i;L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Lanci AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,IvillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUIVILGAUR i i ORDER '

06.01.2012 1, Since-the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch Of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learnedcounsel for the partiespresentat the healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/U/134l/d0ted 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpuiare beingdisposedofby this commonorder!

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-11 in Delhi, commenced with the issuance^of Notific.ationof is"' December, 2000 under Section4of the Land. AcquisiiionAct, 1894, pertaining'to vast tract of agricultural laikd,-in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includ|ingvillages in question, i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstoodacquiredby the RespondentsVide three separateAwards.

1.0., Awar^ No.26/2002-20D3; Award No.'28/2002-20()3;ajidAward ^No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@i ?l3;82 lacs per acre for •• Block 'A' |(leverfield with top soil) and @T12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B' (withouttop soil). ' ™th the assessmentofmaitajvalueoftheiracquired |.A.App.No. 119S/2U08&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •• pp. No. ^94/?.oao&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •' .App. No. Jn/20.1.0&connnctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page Gof 29 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ if!5.00 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, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave.beendismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancementof compensationsought by the appellantsof VillagesBharthalandBijwasanis at the rate of Rupees Fiftylacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions; in Executive Engineer, \ Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246;AnjaniMoluDessaivs. State of Goa and Am.,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors State ofHaryana andAnr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead), through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 See \RanvirSingh and Am, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (sincedeceased)throughLRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. St(ite of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. State ofMaharashtra,(2009) 11see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana&Anr, (2008)2SCC 568; W.p|.(e)No. 4143/2003titled as Smt. Indu Khorana V5. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand'AcquisitionOfficer&Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheh, (2011) 7see, 714, ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, IA.ApD No. :Ug:;/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. Mo. ;.9'1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App.No. m/20.l0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • - p Gujarat and Am\, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 ,(DB);Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769;! General Manager, Oil and ] Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs*. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC;745; Valliyammaland Anr vs'. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 ;SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. I Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh ra. Delhi Development Authorit}' & Anr., deoided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushll Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on i '.

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled|as Bed Ram vs. Union of I India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia,2010

(170) DLT 371. ' •

¶6On the strengthofthe.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mi-.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appeJlants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be ^ (1; first understood in order to appreciate its'potential which must be i adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over aperiodof time anditliesame cannotbe limitedto thenearfuture alone.

¶7It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes throughthe land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,Nev/ Delhi u\.{\/'.pp. No. 1195/2008Si connectcdAppealsofVillage Bharthal iA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiy I\/lurtitowards Dwarka Sub-Cit3^ Part-I and Part-II again divides tlie agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFaniiJlouses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by M-.S.K.Solanlcilearnedcounselfor the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat , Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthalaiad VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developm::?ntof DwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBWinoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/mdcpto highlightthatthe boundaiy of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court h^s 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' agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofA'''illageBharthal had ceasedto be mralin viewoftheNotificationof24"'October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemencefby Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtWo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.App. No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal .A.App. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-.App. No. j.il/?.oio&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' • Page 9 of,29 Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,\Eyderabad& Ors, (1995) I 2 see 305, which has been consideredb}' the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquiredJand must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area oyer a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near futurd alone and if after the J acquisition,if the authoritiesdo not putthe landto anyuse, it wouldnot i ; meanthat there is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from'^52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,thesejsale exemplars cannot be I ' thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale'exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoliiDessai vs. State ofGoa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageoflsa'Ieexemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ^57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore,!i-eliance placed by the. ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates for detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by Mi.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates lixed by the Government and alsd on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate plots mthe year 2000-2001.Keepingin viewthe location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is i-A.App.No. 1135/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App.No. 7.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i t" sought on the strength of sale, exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the baks'ofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or |on the basis of the Pre-DeteraiinedRates(PDRs)as referred.toabove'!

¶12In ithe writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the followinggrounds:- ; : -1 a) "i^ores the achiowledgementon the part of the respondent about the Award Nq.26/2002-2005dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in \the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition\No.l9012 of 2006. '(Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) I I " ' '' b) Does not accountfor the fact that,the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffecte^the rates ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section5 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. j c) Valuing the land on the basis joj the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble\ Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,201Q(3)SCC661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw-hasto he consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. •e) E)oes not deal with disparityin value:.,ofthe SaleDe^ds prodMc^db^rethe trial Courtwti^reasas per the law estabhsnedby the Hon'bleSupreme(^ourtin the recent case of^ Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The 'onbleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldr^ot be disregardedin • T' Appealsof VillageBiiwasan '-^>.App.Ko. 111,2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur V .0. case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging-pfdifferent types of sales transactions should be'- considered while, adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certanland. Relied upon judgment datek 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market^value ofthe subject land while ignoringthe material market value of the land is much acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 of the law laid down by the h.,., , includingin Subh Ram V5. Staie ofHar)?ana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfind}ng on the issue No.l \framed on 27.2.2007. \ g). Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide hotificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the . land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was wmch indicate that the hii^er than 15 lacper in Block B in violation ''on'ble Supreme Court changed and these areas ceased came now under the urban boundaries^ofDelhi State. ;The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use. change show that tri. future land can be subjected to residential, comnjercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinerii:to mentionthat the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74'^amendment ,of the ConstitutionofIndia, w.e^f? 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the^ land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the\nimicipalCounsellor was electedfrom there. No Panhhbyatelections were .held in thearea. \ : • . I h) \Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme [Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anrys. Union ofIndia andrefusedto considerthefact that the developm.entin me area has a directeffecton the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also to-be agricultural and W.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ! auctionedsimilarlysituatedlandas commercialblocks at the rate ofabout ^2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidLandis whollyunderdevelopedland. 1) The valuationofthe subjectlandis 'evenlowerthan the pre-deteminedauction rates set py,RespondentNo 2 jor similarly situated land. i i '' k) Does nottakinto accountthepSssibilityofchangeof .je use ofthe landalthoughthe Icindwas acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II It is nl'ZTf ™°Se DhoolSiras and Bharthal changedand these\areas ceased to be ofDdMStatT''boundaries [ I) IgnoredNotificationsdated I6.I0.2060and24 10 1994 although tl^ey clearly establish ' the commercial whichf j thepurposefor nh ch land IS acquired is a retevantfactor. While ''W. the fact tr ZiWn buildingp^t&rtiaUtyto be Led pr buildingpurposes in immediathor in near future needs to be considered I ^ m) The presence ofa number of buddings on the lands tZ SccupiTbTt buddings arc to be treatedas hoike-sites. The lands ^ere acquredfor purpose cfputtmg up rlidential •muse site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof beingputin betteruseas housesitesin thenearfmurJ^^ >3. In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pai and jothers of LA. Apn No 347/2009.tlie factualdetailshave beenprovidpdwithaprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treatedat par wit^ co-appellantsoftl,e othei appealsinthesebunchofappeals. i H. St.pplen.entittgthe aforesaidargumentsak;ancedon behalfofthe appellants,..:wasttrgedby Mr.AnandYadav.A^catethatthe effectof IaS' Bhartha, •AaIp mSloI t Bijwasan ^o.m/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur # uibanizationofthe lands mthe Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra(MajorGeneral) <&. Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia &'Anr, \16{2m) DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuctionRates 6f the area are relevantto determinethe market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale mstancesrelieduponby the appellantsai'e comparableand oughtto have •been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to |assessthe correctmarket value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting;just, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby theRespondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy' of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannotbe-takenas relevanfevidence for determinationof the market vakie unless and until the same is properly connectedwith the land in question'and element of special fani,y ofthe purchaserand otherfactorsnamely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and tlie sale instancesrehedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtandwhileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DR.I 227, SatpUl& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chandv,. C/Wion ofIndia and An..,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SushUKirniarvs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat sharpincrease in price in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntilreasonsfor such shaip increaseai-e explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA LA. LA.Ac^ N°' ofVillageBharthal •App. No. 294/^010&connectedAppealsofVillageBiiwasan •APP. No. i.u/2010&connectedAppeal.,ofVillagePrhanpt.r m l&s), and the purchaseras no prudentperson having loiowledgeof the usual prevalenttrend in the marketwouldpay such:ahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swaini Satsarig,Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. 'Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBench ofthis Court in SushilKumar (supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is'concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice of the 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;, Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been grafted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancement'fromthe priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting^'the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deservesto be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and tliereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closepemsalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the-decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe true marketvalue of the comparablelandis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto av/iHing LA.App. No. ll'JS/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageSharthal U.Aop, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan lAApp. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur r o^c xo or i f seller and the best evidence is the comparablesale instances. While dealmg;with the questionofpotentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the.iprket value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords:- I ; I

(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or villagewhich had keen growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherlandofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation; % '

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acqidrediaMforputtingup the buildings, be they residen industrial,as the case may be; 'idl, commercial or

(iii) possibilityofobtainingwater,and electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto bepidup on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using theacquiredlandfor buildingp^irpose;

(v) existence, of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresfd^ialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi): benefits or advantages of educationalinstitutions health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildmgs,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

(vii) landsaroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland , Itself being in demandfor buildingpurposes to specify afew. " ' ''

¶18Thepotentialityoflandfor the purposdofdevelopmentas alsofor buildingpurpo.sesdependsupon alargenumberoffactors.For the said purpose,tlie Courtmay not only have to beiriinmind the purpose for lAApp. Mo. 1.1.95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhal ."PP. Wo. P.fMA'Qlo&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan w.App No.in/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePoclianpur which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra).While reiteratingthe relevantfactors for detemiination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofknallpiecesofland relied' upon by the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepiecesof landwere not available.

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

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellantsis 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 justificationfor reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land. . i ..

¶20It is a well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of provingthe true market value of the acquired'land is on the State who has acquiied the agriculturalland for a particularpuipose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can beireferredto with advantage.

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held ihat deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent .observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, v/hichare as under:- lA.App No. 3195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBhartlial IA.App. IMG. :^94/20a0&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur V "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar, lands, usually the highest of the exemplars,which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. Wliere however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can he taken] as representingthe marketprice. But M'here the values disclosedin respectof tw'p sales are markedly different, can only lead to an inferencethat they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or otherprice depressingreasons. Cpnsequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note j^f'theclinchmgobservations pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Fatil (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 absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lanks possessing similar value or utility^ takenplace between]a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreedbetween reasonableprudentpersons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determinethe marketvalue." | Principlesto deteiminethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as 1eiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:-

¶23"Primarily, tlie-increasein land prices depends on four factors - situationof the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilit)'of landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land \in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectofkdevelopmentin the vicinit)/: increase in prices would \be slow, steady and gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjimps. I i.A.A|jp.Mo. J195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ! i LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan i i-A./ipp.Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu'- Page IS of 29 On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a rnuch higher rate, as comparedtorural areas. In somepopketsin big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched\e-\i^n 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there, was] no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers^, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a nominalrate of 1% or 2% per .annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands, in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in. market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10%Ho 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin rural[areaswouldat best be onlyaroundhalfof it, that is about to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the \general trend in the nineties, to be cidoptedin the absenc^eof clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the, actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be applied'woulddependupon thesame. | v Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe marketvalue by providingappropriateescalationover the provedmarketvalue ofnearby lands\ in.previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneouslsale transactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquimonsprecedes the]subjectacquisition that it may be unsafe, even ifit relates^ to a neighbouring land. Whatmaybea reliablestandar^d'ifthegap is onlya few years, may become unsafe and tmreliahle standard where the gap is larger.For example,for determiningthe market-valueof a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale !.A.App.No. 31.95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBhartlial IA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur or m acquisitionin .1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of. years, the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergodrasticchdnge apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease." j !

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Haiyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods..What was saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is,as under:- ' . 'i'' "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential 'fayout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatusor sUuatiod;shouldbe avoided anda uniformrate ofcompensationshokdbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthesamenotification."

¶25Undisputedly,in these appeals sale acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village questionare not availableand the solitaiysa upon by the appellantsis of Village Pochjnpur,i.e., the seven Sale Deedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSvamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Fochanpurat a price whichvariedfrom?52 lacsto ?62 lacsperacre."

¶26WhetheraforesaidSaleDeeds(Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/IO)which are basicallybetweenloneset ofco-ownersaiid RadhaSwamiSatsang, Beas in respectoftliecompactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillageFochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof the land in the villagesin questionis themoot|questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaidsale exeraplars,i.e., Sale Deeds W.APP No 1.195/2008&conhectedAppealsofVillageBharthal -V.App. No. 29-1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i.A.App.No. Jll/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur exemplars in and around I Bi^wasan of the period in e exemplar strongly relied I.A.App W.App, '-A.App, (bx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 kcs per acre. Meaning thereby, exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4-toEx.R^V-l/lO)did not command the samemarketprice;It was dependentupon;the natureand situationof the aforesaidlands. Evidence to establishithe advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question;is lackmg.Therefore,thesesale e5^:emplarscannotbe treatedas disclosmgrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to' Hx.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof the'saagriculturalland has not been got ;examinedby the appellants.Had th0 purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplarsbeen got examined,then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the puijchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an . . I exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide March,20.00 was also subjectmatterin LA. Xp^. 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. Uiiion of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the $ale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhileholdingthat^h| same cannotbe treated as lepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands.^ '

¶27In the instantmatters,tlioiiglithe land, use bf the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,bufithas comein evidence thatthe acquiredlandswere beingusedfor agriculturalpurposetilltheir acquisition.Thus, it becomesevidemthat thl acquiredlands were not developedlands. No prudent person havingjknowledge of prevailing No. .195/2008&connectedAppealsofvillageBharthal No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan - (Mo. 1U/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' ,• ; the :entire land of the sale th Sale Deed executed,on 25 market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale jexemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village' Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11) reliedupon 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.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11)vendor had soldnot only the land but the structurethereon includingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,jane,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. i i'

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

¶30Parametersgoverningfixationofmarketvalue ofacquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority)Hyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '^12. However, in eitherof the said cases whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialityM'ith referenceto the pricefetchedby saleofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tfie neighborhood r lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectGdAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur m orwhetherit he.the determinationofthe marketvahieofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out ^hat will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by anyoftheparties,with,r^renceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoBon the dateofthe publicationofthe preliminarynotifipationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetched by the sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to Itfie relevantdate of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe^'lA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasputandincreaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard Asmall percentage increase to be:given shall not exceed1/5th of the market vaue of the landfound out according'toits actual user since resort to the method ofgiving\increasedvalue for such buMingpotentiality,arises only when there is\o evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate ifforme, in tHe

¶31In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofrate ofland chargedby theDDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands!clvelopingthe same,and hansferringperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apix Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DetemiinedRates in determiningihli market value of the adioming undevelopedfreehold lands. Following:the dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBeiichofthis Court inMSingh (Supra) a.id Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded Ihe DDA rates qua the developedlandsas beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueof PP N0.11V2010&connected/^ppealsofVillagepochanpur the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA ratesfor allftoentofdevelopedland or I the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates foi' alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is iw^etherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue ofthe land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland,othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounselfor the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe 1|^ escalationat the compoundedrate of 10%;perannum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for ithe period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka ,• Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the LandAcquisitionCollectoris morethanthe aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. | •' }

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court mLai Chand (Supra), cautipningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentdf the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a leliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsand therefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value^by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal A.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previous5'^ears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that /the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, 'Avhich is unwan-anted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation@ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in aushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10%) increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%'per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's mmnnumprice 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 grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deservesto be further increasedor not. ii

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum;rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by the learnedcounsel for:appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be uiban.It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthatby itselfis not sufficientto l-A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal : i AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •A.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere beingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale iemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyrelieduponby the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rathei, it emerges from the evidenpe on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,onJaccountofpotentialityofthe change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto arehgiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without',leading any evidence to establishthat.thequalityand potentialityoftlife sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land jwith the sale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot|be treated to be sufficient ^ ground to grant higher compensationwhile relyingupon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore,in view of the afbre-referreddictum of the Apex Court mHaryana State IndustrialsDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which -generally factors in the rise;of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what lA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IVV.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I would be expectedto be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown,Govermnent'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe|market value of the acquired lands in JaiSingh(Supra)as well as in SushilKumar(Supra)andIfind no reasonto take adifferentviewthan the one whichhad been takenby cooidinateBench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra). ;

¶38Ihis Court is ofthe consideredview lhat the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertainingto Village Bharthkl^and Village Bijwasan has lightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofvkageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin close vicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat PetroleumDepots a,nd of Railwaylirie passingthrough Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from Nli-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof the " ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion|ofthis Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquirediWs in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by, the Reference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentialityinl^e acquiredlands is the UaL''I!" ^ VillageBharthal ^ LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan W.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur settled legal position aptly highlightedby the Apext Court in Mirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCp 238, in thesewords:- I "When once a conclusion is reacj\^edthat there was the possihilit))ofthe acquiredland beir^g usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland hadia buildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increaseim priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality." I ; • I ' I

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would tie pery difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan' t never be achievedin the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is bioadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying he.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 treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants^,of Village Bharthal and ufjon the decision in Sushil VillageBijwasan.However, while relying Kumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10%iincreaseover and abovethe I marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin matters on account of the aforesaP locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding;10% increaseover and abovethe martceitvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto VillageBharthal and Village Bijwasan:Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVHlagePochanpurat parwith the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof ij LA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal' ' LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan • lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ! ; • ' ' Page28 of 29 •r;;) the appellants of'Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@,?16,50,000/- the Catcgoiy A land and @^"14,69,600/-per'ibj^afor the Category 'B' lands in question. January 06, 2012 pkb \n^\ |\

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in',the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are gianted, exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the eiihancedcompensationshall be paid. Iheseappellantswouldbe entitled:toproportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terais with direction to :;he Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General ofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. ""(StJNILGAUR) JUDGE po-2-o'-rr^- l7\.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan 1A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ••u.- V-- IN THE HIGH COURT' OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 ™RSHARMA ' , Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitlUaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S..Verma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates ; Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas,Advocate, j, Mr.RaghuvinderGodana;Advocate Mr.N.S.NegiandjMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiaiidMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar,:Advocatefor • Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.SilC.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates '' versus miONOFI^IA&ANR, : hrough. Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran Advocatesfor LAC/UOI •. ^.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, ^.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalShannaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR % order

12.01.2012 CMvAebLNo^2/2012(For , This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof6"^ January,2012. Counselappearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 'k. m '/• ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'^ January, 2012 is that in! paragraph no; 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenced'perbigha'in paragraph no; 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12,2012 pkb ' ~-°WmLGAUR) JUBGE ; AApp.No.1195/2008 Page 2

-V.4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 80/2012 SUBE SINGH & ANR. Appellants Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. SanjayKumarPathak,AdvocateforR-l/UOI Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR