Jagat Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

30.04.2012 CM No. 7354/2012 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act) What has occasioned delay of 189 days' in filing the accompanying appeal is disclosed in Paragraphs No. 3 & 4 of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the appellant. Notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively and state that only opposition to this application is that for the period of delay, the appellants ought not be granted the interest on the compensation amount in the event of it being enhanced. LA.APP No. 137/2012 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. V Since the reasons disclosed in Paragraph No.3 & 4 of the application do not disclose gross negligence for the delay occasioned, therefore, this application is allowed and the delay of 189 days' in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned, while making it clear that for the delayed period, the appellants shall not be granted interest in the event of their succeeding in the appeal. Application is disposed of in aforesaid terms. CM No. 7353/2012 (u/S 151 CPC) The reason for the delay of 517 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal is stated in Paragraph No. 3 of the application, which is supported by affidavit of learned counsel for the appellants. Notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively. Since the reasons disclosed in 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 denying interest for the period of delay. Application stands disposed of accordingly. LA.APP. No. 137/2012 The instant appeal relates to Village Bijwasan, where vide Notification of 13th December, 2000, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land of the appellants stood acquired. LA.A PP No.13712012 Page 2 :3 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-UOI, states that the fate of this appeal stands determined by the decision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008 'Ranbir Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr. ', rendered on 6th January, 2012, wherein 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in respect of lands acquired in Village Bijwasan was awarded by this Court. Counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that case of the appellant is at par . with Ranbir Sharma (Supra). In the light of above, this appeal is allowed in terms of decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra) with statutory benefits and proportionate costs, while declining the interest for the period of delay. This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. fNIL AUR) JUDGE APRIL 30, 2012 rs 'I LA.APP No.13712012 Page 3 I II IN `911E.. mca cotiRT .0_r 71DELHI AT NEW DELHI Revedon:Novenj_.J_.QLL (GRID-A) ,LA.APP. 119 5/20.08 (\'1LLAGE-BJ-JARTHA.L) R.Ai1BiR SHA.Ith4A . Appell?nt Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, tr.Arnit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mi R S Veima, Mr Jitin Te athia, Advocates Mi Ananci Yadav and Ms Anita Tomat, Advocates 4r Rohl.as, Advocate Mr Raghuvindez Gdar, Advocate Mr.N 1S.Negi and Mr.I-I.S.Rauteia, Advocate Mi SJ( Rou an'd Mi B K Routiay, Mr .1\/T. Azam Ans in, Advocates. Ivli Pankaj (Iivck, ACI\ ocate Mi Rajesh 'i'dav, Mi Deepak IK1o'1d Mr rnht Khosla and Mi Dhananjay Mch1twat Advocate' Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.LS.Dahiya. Advocate .Mr.Sancteep Tbakhur. Advocate . Mr.AtulTripathi, Advocate. . :. t'li N S Negi and i'vh H Rauteh Advocates 1 D( ithnL in appal iiec1 by U01, 1NJC)N OF INDIA & AN}t .... ., Rjondent Through: Mi Sanj t\' Puddai, Snior Advocate wit M Sanay Pathaic. Mr.Mohitrao acthav and Ms,Navii:n swain. IVIS K i<au iudi Kcan, /\clvoCctE ec for LACi1.JOJ Mi Ajav \'rnii, Ms Be'ntsha'w Sorn, Mi Mukesli Kumar Vii ' K Sel'u, Mr Pa\an Mathur, Mi Lutial Sharma. Advocat or 1)DA \ APP 11 2'2UO' & C I\' 4O0OO C s-Qb tiu , i J\ J ) .5 /')() ) I e' &PP 4312oo g I A APP 68$120i)8 CM No 5i9OI2O1 '.) (Cri Ob' to'm) A API 697iz00S CM No 13 12009 ((.. ro's-ObJL(;t1ons), A APP 101 '?OOS CM .No. 51 0/2009 (Cross-0h jectios); LA.AP11.768/2008; LA.APP.O/.2CO; :,AApp. ......i./2OO8 connected Apptais of Village BharUiI '.p. No 2E4/201,0 & connected AppdUIS Of Village I3ijwnn 'App. No. 1:11/2.0710 & '.:;inctd ApaaIs of ViIiao Pocianpur age 1. ci .?J / ----- I A.APP.771 /2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.772/2008 LA .APP,773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.A pp.174/2008 & CM.No.61 1/2009 (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.APR783/2008• LA.AP p 784/2008 LA.APP.785/2008• 1,A.APP.798/2008 & (M No 615/2009 (Closs-Ohiections), LA APP 799/2008 & CM No 931/2009 (Cross-Objections)' 1,A.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008;1,A.APP.81 3/2008 & CM No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objectiois) LA.APP.8 18/2008; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008

1.A.App.829/2008 1,A.APP.830/2008• LA.APP.832/2008 LA.APP.83/2008; LA.APp.844/2008 • LA.APP.845/2008• LA.APP.873/2008 &CMNo.779/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008 LA.A pP.901/2008 LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.95 1/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross -Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP;973/2008; A 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.No572/2009 APP 1029/2008& CM-No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1031/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections)' LA APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008;

1.AAPP.1 047/2008;LA.App 1048/2008& CM,No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections)' LA.APP .1049/2008 & CM. NI T .420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008: LA APP. 1051/2008 &. CM.No. 17262/2008 (CrossOhjeetions)LAApp1 052/2003; LAAPP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objectjons)•Ij . APP ]0547'2008 & CM No. 1166,12009 (Cross -Qbiectjons)' LA.APP. I 055/2008;LA APP 1057/2008 & M No 752'2011 (Cross-Objections); LA APP 1058/2OO8 CMNo 15S7'201 I (C 1os-01jcctions), IA APP 1059/2008 & CMNo l7?S9/2OO8(C10-ObjLctIo h) I %, APP 1060/2008,1 A APP 1062/2008 & CM No 546i2009 (Cross-Objcc ' j I \ \PP 1073/2008, IA APP 1074/2008 & CMNo 62)12009 ((1os_Object1o11) I ' 'PP 1075'7008 LA APP 108F2008 & CMN 462 2009EJoss-Ob)LtoJ]; I A APP 1 084'2008& CM-No-1730,2/2008 (Cross-Objections) I A \.PP I 086 2.O1iS & CR4 No 2448/2008 (Cross-Objections): [A APP b 087h008 CN 1 No61 )Pi)09 ( 1os-Ob)ections), LA APP 1093/2008, A APP 1094/2008 LA APP 1095'200, 1 A APP 1103/2008 & M NC) 441/2009 (Cross-Objins) I A APP 11 08i200, & ( RI No 3839/2009 (Cross-0byciions), IA APP I 109'2O0 I A APP 11 10i200 Ni N 3828/2009 (Cioss-Objectioiis), LA APP 1111/2008 LA AP 1 112/2003 & ( M No 3831/2009 (Cross-Objections), IA APP 1113/2008 & CM }\ o.3-812 6 P000 (r Loss0hject1ons): L.A.APP 1115/2008, L A P? 1116/2008, L APP 1121/2008 1 A \PP 12b/2008, LA APP 1129/2008 & CMNo 550/2009 (Cross--Objections); L \ APP 11 30P008, I A APP 1131/2008 & CM NC) 66/2009 (Cross ObJect1of1s L/\..APP, 11331/2008; LA.APP.1 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections): 1 ..A.APP.! 37/2008 &. CM.No. 17233/2008 (C:ross-Objectio p s); LA.APP. 1140/2008; LAAPP1 156/2008; LA.APP.1 157/2008; LA.APP.I 158/2008 & CMNo.7774/2009 ( .Cross-Ob)ections); .LA.APP. 1159/2008; LA.APP. 1. 161/2008; LA.APP. 1166/2008; LA.APP.1 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 168/2008; 1\.APP.1 170/2008; I.A.APP.1 171/2008; LA.APP.1 172/2008; LA.APP,1 173/2008; I.A.APP.fl 75/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP. 1179/2008; LA.APP,1 181/2008; L.A.A.PP.1 182/2003; LA.APP.1 183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cros-OhjectLns): i../\.APP. 1184/2008: LA.APP.1 185/2008; LA.APP.1 1 86/2008&. CM.No.701 3/2009 A..';p No. 19/2oo8 & Coil roctcd Appeals of VIILOc Bloarthal No. 294/20 1 0 L conoocted Appeals 6f ViiIage Bijwasan .A.Ap;. Lir.. 1 1.1/2010 &comected Appoals of Vidage Pochaipur Page 2 o 29, ( Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP.1 192/2008; LA-APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; I A AP1 I 198/2008& (f\4No 693S/2009 CrOsQbjectjons) LA APP 1200/2008 LA.A pp ] 202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 121.1/200.8-- LA-APP 1212/2008; J.A.APP 1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No ; 6957/2009(C1;OssObjectjofls); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1241/2008& CM.No.3 841/2009 ((-'ross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008; LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APPJ277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; LA.A PP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008; LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009 LA.APP.37/2009. LA.APR39/2009; LA.A pp.42/2009 & CM.No.746/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.App.73/2009 & CM.No.71 03/2009 (Cross-.Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; LA .APP.79/2Oo9 LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No. 953/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 13 8/2009; LA.APPj39/29; LA.APP. 1 40/2009; LA-APP. 143/2009; LA.APP.144/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009;LA.APP.201/2009; LA.APP 202/2009; LA.APp.203/2009 . LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections). LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970,'2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.A pp 21 1/2009; LA-APP-220/2009; LA.APp.222/2009 . LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/7009 LA.APP.227/2009 . LA.APp.230/2009 & CM.NO.7206/2009 (Cross-Ohjectjoiis). LA2APP.241/2009. LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP 749/2009 LA.APP.257/2009; L A.APP.295/2009; i.A.AP p.305,'2039 . A APP 367/2009, 1 A APP 437/2009, LA APP 447/2009 1 APP 45812009 LA APP 459,2009, IA APP 466/2009, IA APP 480/2009, LA APP 481/200, LA.A pp 489/70O9 LA.APp.490/7009; LA.APP.491,12009; LA.APP.493/20)9 . LA. --'0P.494/2009; LA.APP 495P009 • LA.APP.503/2009. LA.APP.506/7009; LA APP 507/2009 LA.APP 508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009 . 1, A. 10/2009; I APP 11/2009, LA APP 512/2009 LA APP 513'2009 L , 'A.AP.P..567/2009. LA APP 572/2009 IA APP 15/2010 LA APP 45'2010, IA APP 48'2t10, LA APP 404/2010, L APP 13/2011, LA APP 1138! 12008 .' L & \P1' 1176, LA APP 1177/2008, LA APP 1201/2008, A APP 231/2009 (R'-elating to Notification No F 10(30V96/L& B/LA/13fi7 dated 13 12 2000 issued tinder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthaj, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on. Decen'jbei 08, 204 1 PonowwedonjanijO6,0p L.A.PP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BJJWASAN) I) I)EVENDI p [<JJIviA.R TI 'hro ugh Appellant Mr.R.S.Tornar, Mr.Virendra Singh ' 1'4) P No .1f/2Uo8 & connecj Appods of JHage Bhartha! .A "po. NC) 294/7.010 & ccnnected AppoN orVUae Bijwasan L..4p9. N ..1/7.OiO & conflei:td Appeth of Villiigo Pochaiiur Pace 3 of 29 Advocates Mr.-S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69.73, 75, 76) versus UO1& ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Saniay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanj ay Kumar Path.ak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOi/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal flied by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for I)DA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 JA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA APP 5 6/2 010 LA APP 57/2010 LA APP 59/2010 LA APP 70/010 LA.A.PP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP:226/2010 I A APP 242/2010 LA APP 246/2010 LA APP 271/2010 LA APP 281,2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/201-0. -L...PP. 285/2010 i A APP 287/2010 LA APP 298/201.0 LA APP 289/2010 LA.APP. 294P010 I APP 295/2010 LA APP 296'10 LA APP 313P010 IA A PP 4/201() LA APP 346/2010 LA APP 347/2010 LA APP 348/2010 LA APP 349/210 JAAPP 350/2010 LAAPP 35l/2010 LA APP 352/2010 A. 3S3'20l0 LA APP 354/2010 LA APP 356/2010 LA APP 357/2.010 LA APP 358i20) [A APP 365/2010 LA APP 742/2010 LA APP 760'2010 LA APP 359P010 1 A APP 60i201() LA APP 361/2010 IA APP 362P01() I A APP 63/2010 I \ APP 05/2010 I A.APP 406/2010 LA APP 407/2010 LA APP 408'2010 IA APP 09/2010 LAAPP 43 8/2010 LAAP1' 588/2010 TAAPP 722/2010 LA APP 123/201() 1 A APP 724/2010 I A AP1 725,2010 LA PP 72 2010 IA.APP. 727/2010 LA..APP. 729/2010 LA.APR 731/2010 --LA.APP. 732/2010 t AAPP 750/2010 [A APP 759/2010 IA APP 764/2010 LAAPP 828/2010 I A APP 964/2010 1 A APP 286/2010 LA APP 364/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA. APP. 99/2010 & LA.API. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417dated 13.12,2000 issued under Section 4 of the Laud Acquisition Act, 1894 . & Award No. 28/2, 00-2-2003 ..'Village Bij lxasan, Delhi) AND -ipp. No. 1195,i2(08 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal i-A App. No. 29/1/20-ic & connected App aIofViUage Bijwasan .App. Jo . 11./2010 & c;onnectcd Appeals of Village Pochanour 4 of 29 V IMM -------------- -------------------.- (GRID-C) ( Reserved on.Dece,nberj8 2011 Pronounced on: January 06 -2-012 1A.AFP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND QRS. Through: versus Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for app I e flant (in R-16, 20 7 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40,44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr. S B. Kumar, Advocate-for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav. Advocate for appellant in R-22) Respondents Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sarijay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao. Jadhav, and Ms.Navljn Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr Bankey Bihari Sharma Mi Kuria] Sharma and Mr Sorner K S th Advocatez. for DDA. UNION OF INDIA &. ANR / Through: I A APP 111/2010 LA APP 154/2010 LA APP 155/20'O LA-APP 156 !2 010 LA APP 160/2010 LA APP 165/2010 LA APP 209/2010 LA APP 2 5/22C 10 IA APP 228/2010 LA APP 248/2010 LA APP 29/2010 LA APP 0i2010 TA L\pp 254i(7010 LA.APP 260/2010 LAAPP 261/2010 [A APP 270/2010 LA.APP. 292/2010 IA APP 293/2010 LA APP 305/2010 LA APP 306/2010 I APP 107/201() LA APP 317,'2010 LA APP 392/20l IA APP 393/2010 I 'APP 35/20l0 LA APP 396/2010 1 A APP 397/2010 LA APP 412/ ' 1010 ' APP 420/20It) IA APP 432/2010 LA APP 433/2010 Li, APP 434/2010 I A APP 46612010 LA APP 489/2010 LA APP 577/2010 LA APP ri/2010 IA APP 037'2010 Li APP 63 0/2010 LA APP 640'2010 LAAI'P 657'2010

1.A.APP. 60/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APP. 741/2010 LA.A1P. 758/2010 IAAPP 76i010 LAAPP 768/2010 LAAPP 784/2010 LA APP 918/010 LA APP 919/2010 1 A APP 10-52/2010 LA PP 61/2,011 LA APP 64/201 LA-APP. 65/2011 LAAPP, 116/2011 LA.APP. 117/2011 LA.APP. 119/2011 LA.APP, 120/2011 LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 129/2011 LA.APP. 429/2011 L.\..APP. 476/2011 LA.APP. 485/201 1, LA-APP. 521/2011 LA.APP. .522/2011 I..A.APP323/2O1 I LAAPP. 525/2011 LA..APR 526/2011 LA.APP 535/2011 Li\.APP. 536/2011 LA.APP. 554/2011

1.AAPP. 59 1/201 1 tf./pp. o. 1] 05/2008 . connected Appeal; of Village lhziiThal 294/2010 & conoocted Appeals of Village £3jwasan i.4.f\pp. No. I .ti/2010 & connected Appoaj of Village Pochanpur Page of 20 I --...., (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& .B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) C OR AM: 1IONBLE MR JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.O1.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for. the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Nott/Ication IVO.F. 10(30)96-L& 13/LA11341 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthai, Bijwasân and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. 2 Acquisition process for planned development of (Dwaika Phase.- II in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of 'Votitkatton of 31/i December, 2000 under Section 4 of theLand Acquisi ion ct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agucunuial land in one 0 mpapt block ompi ismg of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in quesPon, i.e., Bhaithal, Bijwasan and Pochanpui 3 Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the . aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.ç., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003 ;and Award No.30/2002-.2003 granting compensation @ Z13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field with top soil) and @T i2.32 ias per acre for 8-lock. ' 13 ' (without top soil).

4.

i)issatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acquired .AApp. No. 1.19/2008 &. connected Appeils of Viiage Bharthil ".App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasan A./pp. 1o. :111/20:1.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur I. 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 @ Z15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in: Biock 'A' and 13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation soi.ight by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at therate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the preceents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 SCC 246; AnjaniMoluDessa! vs. State of Goa andAnr.,

(2010) 13 Sec 710; Subh Rain and Ors vs. State ôf Haryana , and Ann,

(2010) 1 SCC 444, Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs Vs Special Tehsiidar(!,and Acquisition,) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCE. 66 1' Sing/i and 4nr, vs Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467, (hi,uIh Fakira Paul

(1)) through LRs vs The Special Land Acquisition OfJwer, Jii'gaoei, 2011(2) SCALE 321, Jai La! vs Union of India 2002 (6)) DRJ 227, Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRc vs to of India & ,-ia 2002 (65) DRJ I (OB), Lidho Dass vs State of

Ha an' & Ors, F 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas i's. Stale of Punjab & Qrs., 2011 (9) S '\l L 362, 4vznash Dhavaji Nailc vs State of tl(Ialuzrashtra, (2009) Ii SCC 171.; Alma Singh (Dead) through LRs and :Ors vs State of thuyana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as LSJnI. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special LanitAcquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. .Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs.. Executive Engineer, •\ 4 çr) No. 1,9/2008 i con nectd Ap:eals of Vlage Martha ,(\,\p . N. (94/2010 & connected Appeis of Viiiige Bijwasan Ii\.App No. 01l2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocharpur Page? of 29 -.-.- ----.-. .-.-.- .--........................ Gujarat and Anr. AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development coiporation, (2010)11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); Lal chand vs. Uition of India and Ajir., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and • Natural Gas Corporation Ltd i's. Rameshbhai Jivanbiuji Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 scc 745; Valliyammal and Anr i's. Special Tehsiidar (Land AcqIisitiQn) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kira n. Tandon i's.

4.ilahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 scc 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; K up/i Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr,

1.76(2011) 1DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. A Dl/ii Development Authorit' & Ann, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 :SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 42, LA APP No .656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs Union of India, decided on

26.09.2.01 1; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Rain vs. Unio;i of India, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhule Rum vs. Uni&n oflndia. 2010

(170) PUF 3 71 On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the vety outset, it was urged by Mi 13 S Maan, learned arguing co u_1_1. for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agncultuial land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potentialhih must he adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over -a period of lime and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tornar, counsel for appellants that i elhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes ifirough the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IG1 Airport, New Delhi i./.p,:. No. 11J5/2OC8,& connected Appeals of Village Bharlhaf No. 2 d4/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Uijwasan .A..pp. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpLlr V and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part .4. and Part-11 again divides the agricultural land into --t portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension. of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for developme,nt of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-IT, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the a/cs sizras/rnap to highlight that the boundary of Village ' Bharthal, Village Pochmpur and Village Dhool Sfras are contiguous. 8 It was strenuously urged by Mi B S Maan, learned counsel fol.the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreci Lte the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its Iocation and has illegally treated the acquired land to be a ricultural in spite of Notificat1on of 16th Octobei, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural •t ;1idential./ commercial/industrial ., etc. .and infact the entire land ofVillae Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 20' October, 1994. it was argued with much vehemence by Mr. S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Refrence Court by relying upon P. Rama 1-195/2008& 1 onnecto.d Apeak of "illage Bharthal A.App. No. 212010 corilected Appeakof Villa Bijwasan ...App. No. it/?O1) connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page of 29 Reddi & Ors. vs Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryanà & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot bç limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from 52 lacs to Z62 lacsand merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars. cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court' there is, no basis to conclude that these . sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition !aid clown by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Des ctii vs State of Goa q!ld4fl.r., (2010) 13 SC 710, the average of sale exemplars Ought. to be taken as representing the market puce of the land which oir es to 37 ac' pqr acre and since the sale exemplars iehed upon by the appellants uC the comparable sale instances, therefoic, reliance plated by the Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rated for..determining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.

¶11Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Mi R Godaia learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-dterni med. rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is i..A,App. No. 1 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA/pp. No. o(;/zoio & connected Appcis Of Village Llijwasan .A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PD-Rs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis,, appeliant - Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- a,) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.2612002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being 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 account for the Jct that the Public Notice dated 18.9. 1987 adversely affected the rates of land -i the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition A,dt,, 1894 was issued c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated 11 92001 issued by the Government of Nationi1 Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance viJh the law laid clown by various decisions including in one ',f inc inure recent decisions of the Hon'ble Saptcinc' ('ourt in Sangunti'zala versus Tahcildar 2010(3) SCC 661 d) ]oi es the evidence and other factors which. as per established law has to be considered before ascei ta'nzng the value of the land under acquisition. c) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced be/are the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the lIon 'ble Supre;'ne Court in the recent qase of Chin cia Fakira Paul versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeai No. 5475 of 2007. The I-Jon 'h/c Supreme Court has specifIcally held that Sale Deed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in L.A .Ap. N O ]..W/2QO& connected Appeals of Village l3hartha LI\.p. NO 294/2010 & connected AppeLils of Village Bijwasar, A.A;>p. NO 111/2010 & coiinectd Appeals of Village Pochnpur -,---.--.---.--- -.-.----------.----.------.--.-------------.---------- -------- ,--- - L case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Mo/u Dessaj vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest qf the exemplars and not by averaging of diftèrent types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. I) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and 13,36,00O in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Hai'yana 2010(1) S(.'C 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.] framed on 27.2.20O7. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village .Dhool Siras and B ha rtha 1 was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came. now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications 01 Government for land use change show that in future 1cimd can' be cubjected to residential, commercial and ot1er permissible ucs It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant i ad evidence in respect of the 74" amendment of the Constitution of India, w ef 1 6 I99 IX 4, by virtue of which the Municipal Corpoi ation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municipal area and the municipal ('ounsello' was elected from there No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Unior of India and refused to consider the fact that the development In the area has a direct efftct on the price that a willing purchaser would pay fbr the subject land. 0 Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had alo !A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthul l/.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan lA.pp. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpui-N auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about Z2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 jr similarly situated land. If) Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of i?warka Phase Ii. it is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. l, Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10-1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land in Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), ((2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose for which land . is acquired is a . relevant factor. Whil determining value of the property acquired the jct whether the land has got building potentialitY tobe used 1f?r building purposes in immediate or in near juture needs to be considered m) The presence of a number of bu'ldings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be trecited as house cites The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house cite, the adjoining lands have the potential of being.put in better use as house sites in the near fitfre." 1 3. in the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App No. 347/2009, the factual details have been provided with a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of the ctJicr appeals in these bunch of appeals. . Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of Ii.App. No. 1195/2008 & cpnnected Appeals of ViIlge Blarthal A.App. No. 294/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan .A App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ..----.----.------.- urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh .Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State 0 i1ahariishtra, AIR. 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) &- Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that P-ri-l)etermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates -of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market - yalue of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Pdciar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51. Of Lind Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Decd is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as ielevant evidence icr determination of the market value unless an:d until the same is properly connected with the land-in question and element.pfspecia.1 fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of t1e property, proximity to the village etc are also iequircd to bc 'onsideie and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference-Court:and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai Lal VS. Union of India, 2002 (62) PR! 227, Scitpal & Ors vs. Union Jndji, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lal. (hand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2. 009) 15 SCC 769; I.A. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sus/üiKunuzr vs. Ujüon of India, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increase in, price in a short period cannot he taken to be realistic until reason.s for uc.h sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App. No. 119S12008 & connected Appeals of Vii! Ige Bharthal J.App. No. 294/2010 &, connected Appelc of Villeg. Wjwasan A.App. No. 11.1/2010-A connected Appeals of Village Pocharpur and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of I& DO rates/Pre-I)etermined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! Cvhand (supra) which has been followed by . a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (supra)- and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the RespQndents/cross-objectçrs that the same has already been factored into while fixing the fulk minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Qovernment as on 1st April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, asn Sushi! ICui'nar (supra) appreciation. @ 10% per annum has been granted Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from th puce of acqt' ed lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the .e-haicernent by the Refence Court wh1e taking into consideiation the ippr&iation jJ 1 2% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in !uiL '\hile granting appreciation ( lO% per annum and thereby allowing the dross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned judgment, the evidence on record7and the-decisions cited, what emerges .is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to a willing LA-App. No. 1195/2008 & connécted-Appe-as of ViUage Bharthal LA.Aup. No. 294/2010'& onnected AppeaJs -ol-Village Bijwasan LA-App. No. 11(1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page iS of 29 - seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While d.a1ing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to b. considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Who Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- 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, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population; 'ii) the suitability, of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential commercIal or industrial as the case may be; NO possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land; (iv,) absence qfstatutory impediments or the li/ce for using the acquired land for building purpose* (v,.) existence of highways, public roads, layouts Of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land,

(vi) bene.fits or advantagres of eduationa/ health

t(lStitUtiQ;i care centres or the like in the,suriounding areas of the acquired land which'.ày become available to the occupiers oJ buildings, if built on the acquired land, and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a Jew." 18, The potentiality of land for the Purpose of development as also for building pu1poes depends upon a large number of factoi For hL said pirpose, the court may not only have to bear in mind the Purpose for l.i\,App. No. 1.95/200 & r:onrcted Appea of \Ifflige itharthal I rio. ?)4/2O1) & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwrsan LA..\pp No. 13.1,'rjjQ & connected Appeals of Village Pàchanpur Page 160129 . Mr- ...................... . .J..... .•1.. . --------------j 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 comensation for acquired lands, it has been held b y the Apex Court in .4/ma Singh (supra) that the exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially whenexemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Of & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714J h legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no bask 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 justificatiên for . reducing the compensation on the, ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land 20 It, is a well established proposition of Liw that the burden of Provin g the true market value of the acquii ed Icirid is on thc State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular püipO se. But, it is equall', true that the burden of proving inadequacy of ornpensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decisIbn. of the Apex Court in ICircin Tandon (Supra) can be referred to wi th advantage.

21.. Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking ñote of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction: of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mo/u Désai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- A./pp No. 11.95/2008 & ccinected Appeals of Village Bharthal I /, App. No. .9 11/2010 & con cteci Appeals of Vilsge Bjwasan .A.tp No 111 12010 & coirecteel Appeals of Vill,ge Pochanpur . - / \ "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of iwo sales are markedly different, itan only. lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to."

¶2It would he worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex, Court in Ghindha Fakira Paul (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 bona fide sale transactions prox•inate to the point of acquisition qf the lands situátëd 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 icylect the true value as agreed between reasonable pi' uci'i' persons acting in the normal market conditions are the rea ' 'asls to determine the market value Principles to determine the market value of the , acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex. Court in Oil and Natural Gas Csrporauion Lid. (Oi'GC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices , oi.j2ür factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the qrea, and the :emand ,for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof develokinent n the 'ticiniiy increase in prices would be slow, steady, and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. A.p. N. 1 1,/2308K. connected Appeals of Village Bhrthai App. No ?94/2010& connected Appeals-of village Bijwasan .A ,(pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Podia npu. L On the 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 much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high dema,nd for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated Jhr 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 areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/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 spec j/ic evidence relating to increase in prices. Where. there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence 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 determimng the market value by providing approprzate escalationovei the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years , (CS( evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), wherc there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale ti ansactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only'a few years, that is up-to four to five years. Beyond that it ma)) be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standardlf the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the -market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or J.Aop. No. II !j5/200& & connected Appeals o Village Bharthztl .App. Na. 294/2010 & connected Appeals(ofviliage Bijwasan .A.App (40. 1 1.1/20 & connected Appeals of ViLge Poclianpur - ......................--------------------------------- -••-•• --.-. . •. \ acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic .change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods.. What was said by the Apex Court in. HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- When different categories of lands (or lands with different situational advantages) are acquired for the same purpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation should he awardedfrr all lands acquired under the same notification. 25 Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exempoli s, in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitaiy sale exemplai strongly relied Upon - by the appellants is of Village Pochanpm, i.e., fte seven Sale Deeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Swami Sats.ang, Bea hd purchased the agricultural land in Villagt. Pochanpui at a prlcL which varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex PW-i/4 to Ix PW-iilO) which are basically between one set of co-owners and .Radha Swami Saisan Seas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 B swas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value of the La11(17111 the villages in question is the moot question which is required lo be answered. Evidently, aforesaid safe exemplars, i.e., Sale 'Deeds L4.App. No 1 Lc5/2c08 & connected Aopels of Viige Bharthe L.\pp. No. !94/2CY1u & connected Appea&of Village Bijwasan j, t/?.OiO & connected Appk of Village Pochanpui MUM A JIV (Ex.PW-1/4 to Fx.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not comtand the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of 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 exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpiir vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has riot been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural Ind has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purchaser/vendee of the afoicsaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have beei e]c.ited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for Ihese lands. ThQ special fancy of the purchaser, i.e.,. Radha Swami Sitsang, J3eas who had purchased more than 3 Bighas of land at an xoi hitarii price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale Peed executed on 25th March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA App No 266/2008 titled as 1(11 Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23 -8. 2 011 2011 arid in LA App NC) 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs Union of India, decided on 19 9 01 1 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale e\cmplai of Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same can.td be treated. as representative price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence fl-14t the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not dcvcloped lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing \I. 195/2008 çfnnected Appeals f VUage 13harthal o 21)4/),--,:j0 & conjcctcd . Appajs of Viflage Bijwasn No. 1: i!?O10 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur - ..................-.-..--.---...- ........-...-...-.. ------- 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 exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.P'W-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So -far as the sale exempt r of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) relic4 tjpon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of 27 Ih January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/1 1) was situated on the National Highway. - 8 and' because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-l/1 1) 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 he treated as a representative price 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 for the dcveloped ,land and 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 30 Paiameteis governing fixation of market value of acquiièd lanes highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P Rain Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Deveiôpnient Aiit/writ;; Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-

¶12However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed la out in tJ'è ihborho'od .A,App. No. 1195/2008 connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA,Ao. No. 294/2010-;& connected Aoeals Of Village Bliwacan I.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur how-------- ---- A J. or whether it he the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in 'an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales ofplots ,in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with,- ' reference to the price which the plots could have fetched f sld on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act Further, where no evidence ofprzce fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4'1 of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to bç thde availble in that regard A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 115th of the market value . of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased valt'e for such building potentiality arises only when there, is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as cuch, for building plots even if formed in the acquired land 31 In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the I)I)A after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Cliand (Supra), held that it is not safe 01 advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/1 rc-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of-,La! Ch and (Supra), a • coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Sing/i (Supra) and Sushul Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lardsas being not relevant for assessing the market value of A.App. No. 11.9 .5/2008 & connected Appeals Of Village Bhartha IA-App. No, 294/201() & thflflectd Appeals Of Village BiJwasan LA.App. No. 1.11/2010 & Connected Weals of Village Pochanpur '-,.------------------.--..------.---.... I - / the undeyeloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Deterrnined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶2Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village .Bharthal and, other villages for development of Dwarka. Phase-I. It was sought to he argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that 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 Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-11, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid esca1ted price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Cliand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of t1 acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years,- may beconteunsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwatka Phase-I and Dwarka L Phase-11 is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App ilo. 1195/2002 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connected . Appeals ofVillage Bijwasan I A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected ApPeais of Village Pochanpur escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous yeais

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per - annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation (0-)10 per annum.. After having perused the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying Upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court 12% per anni.jrn cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's niinimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum puce 101 the agricultural land by the Government w e f 1" April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not 36: Adoption of Government's minimum ratesof a.:ricultural land peitainin to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had-ceased to by an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 24 t11 October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be irban1t is true that vide aforesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appeals;of Village Bijwasan LA.App. NC). 111/2010 connected Appeils of Village Pochanpur i.) presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered asdeveloped lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Raciha Swami Sat.ang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale ofth said lands was for agricultural purpose. 3 7. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year. 1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Sarnalkha (Ex PW-1/l 1) without leading any evidence to establish that , the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars àfRadha LSwaml Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of \'illage Samalkha (Ex PW-l/l 1) are comparable with theacquned lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of \'illage Sarnalkha (Ex PW-1/1 1) cannot be heatedto be sufficient ground to giant higher compensation while ielying upon the aforesaid sa1ç instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddidturn of the Apex Court in Haryana Stale Industrial Development corporalion (HSIDC) (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awarded for the lands auirel under the same Notification in the light of the npiium price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land 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 A.App. NO. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. lo. .111/2010 (&, connected Appeak of Village Pochanpur -- would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! 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 Jal Singh (Supra) and Sushul Kumar (Supra).

¶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 Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of theacquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality' the acquiied lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Auport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village J3haithal and there being a 100 meters side road startir, from NH-8 fibrn Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Pait II,ivdmg thc acquned lands in two portions, and there being Fairn Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Ac: Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, n account of aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands iñqUestion, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and 'above market Lvalue of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on accouT of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the I.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & conhected ApeaIs of Village Bharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010 & corrnetod AppaIs of Village Bijwasan LA:App, No. 111/2010 & 'connected Appals of Village Pochanpur IV' \ ,' 3) settled legal legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine Its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."

¶39Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to tieat the acquired lands differentl.' and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan However, while relying upon the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase.ovei and above the market value of the acquired !ands determined by the Refeience Court in these matters on account of the aforesaid locctional advantag s piovidrng a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awardmg 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters 'pertaining to Village Bh-arthal and Village pijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpür .at par with the apllants bf Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of I.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A.Apn, No,.294/2010& connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Póchanpur -. ......................... -----------.----------- --------------..-- .........................-..--- --- - -.-.-.----- ... the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these ihie villages in question is determined 16,5O,OOO/- perjigh for the Category 'A' land and @ !14,69,600/- per b ha for the Category'B' lands in qiestion.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory' , benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained ill the jucgmçIr1t reported in Sunder vs. UQI 2001 (93). DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which pei iod of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. 42 The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to lemit the c onipensatioii amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned-Reference Court Decree sheets be accordingiy prepared - (SUMLcALR) JU)GE Januay 06, 2012 \ ji .R. A App. No, U9/2008 P. connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 294/2010 & t:orineted Appeals ofVigi( (E3ijwaan A Apr. No. : il/201.0 & connected Appeals .& Village. Pocharipur --.-----.---- ................ / IN I THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP, 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARI\4A Appellant Through: Mr.B . S .Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr. Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.I-I.S.Rauteia, Advocate Mr. S .K.Rout, Mr.B .K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tornar, Advocate for Mr.R. S .Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr. S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr-Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadh.av. and Ms Navirn Swain, Ms K Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/U01 Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethj, Ms. .Aiita Singh, Mi .ankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kuna1 Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates••• for DDA - CORAM: HON'BLE MP. JUSTICE SVNIL GAUR QRER %

12.01.2012 752/2012 correcti This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6th January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 * -.---------.----of the application. Advance copy of this application has already.been given to remaining counsel for the appei.lans. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent inthe decision of 6th January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'pr bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it .is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in parágráph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correction be carried outforthwith. . . . . . . In view of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. UNJL. GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 12, 2012 .. . ... . pkb L Page 2 -------

$-7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 137/2012 JAGAT SINGH & ORS. Appellants Through: Mr. S.K. Rout & Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocates. versus V UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. S.N. Pandey, Advocates for R- 1/UOI. Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R- 2/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR