Vimal Parkash Tanwar v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vj'. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb -===(S^^GAUR) JUDGE Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. IN I HE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHAI^JMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mx.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghiivinder Godara, Advocate Mr.K.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiitray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla., Mr.Samil; Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.vS.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals 11led by UOI) versus UNIONOFINDIA & ANR. Respondents Thi'ough: Mr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Sv\'ain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA

1.A.APP.412/2008&. CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.452/2008; I.a.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& CM.No.5990/2010(Cross-Objections)! l.A.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP-.701/2008& t:M.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; IAApp No. 1..19I;/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ; •'i.App. No. /O'l/JOlOS ronriected Appealsof VillageBijwasan :."..App No.in/?0]0&conneclcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page1of 29 LA.AJ P.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections)'LA.APPn2l2009,- rK4No'sn72009^&CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& CM.Ko.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008-IAAPP 77f;/7nfts. LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008& CM.No.940/2009(ctfsOb7cS" CM No6I5S''Vr'•"^•API'-785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008& CM.No^I5/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No931/2009 StN;?7'Sro9' LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008& CM.KoJ7)5/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Closs-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA APP 819/2008' LA APP 820/9008 [•^•2|:P-8f';2008; LA.APP.830/2008;' LA.APP.SaaS;' LA APPs'sao^ r ni LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM No 779/2011 LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV CMn' ™"/^ LA.APP.90./2008;LA.APP.915/2008;LA^^tsM^rt L-M.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008' I A APP 971/9008-LA.APP.974/2008& CM.No.5I9./2009(Cross-ObiectZi-LA APP9^8 LA.APR976/2008;LA.APP.978/2008;LA APP.986io081' CM N0 572Z9 Cross-Objections;LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.1734^08' la.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-ObiectionsV LA.APP.1032/2008& CM.No.599/2009(Cross-ObjectionrLA -A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008&CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Obiertinnq'i IAAPP 105Sg& (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008 i'A APP 10Sr2008^ (Crass-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008 CM No 1766/9000 rr (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008& CM No 752 20? LA'APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & um.JNo_/52/2011 (Cioss-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM No 1557/2011 Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.1059/2008 cfe CM.No 17259/2008(CrossObipKinn.^ LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP,1062/2008& CM.NoSm LA.APP.1073/2008;LA.APP.1074/2008& CM.No623/fo09 1A LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/'2009(Cross-ObiectionsV k CMN?24S™ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l086/2008 (Cross-ObS;"[Sp?:f;S^^^ CMtfo3839/2009^ 1/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l108/2008& CM No 3828/2009 LA.APP.H09,'2008;LA.APP.niO/2008& CM No'3S?S9 '' "2008;LA.APP.ll12/2008& CM.N03831/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.ll13/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 1A LA.APP.Ill5/2008;LA.APP.l116/2008; LA.APP 1121/2008 LA.APP.l126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Obiectio.is) LA.APP.lI3I/200S & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections) .A.APl.1133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Obiections) LA.Al P.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Obiections)'LA APP 1140/2008 ^.APPJ156/2008;LA.APP.l157/2008;LA.APP.l158/2008^ CM No La7ppmrS LA.APP.1166/2008; CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections)'LA APP 1168/9008 LA.APP.1171/2008;LA.APP.ln2/2008; iMS LA.AI P.1175/2008;LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.l179/2008-LA.APP.l181/2008 IAtppl LA.APP.1183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.API .1184./2008;LA.APP.l185/2008; LA.APP.l186/2008& CM.No.70]3/2009 IA.App No. 1195/2008&conn(!ctedAppeal.sof VillageBharlhal • IA.App. No. 2<M/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan i-A.App.Mr,. :ili/2010&coniiocieciAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur Page 2 of 29, % LA.APP.1I98/2008& CMNo6935/200Wrm ni, L^.APP.|197/2008; LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP1203/S TI add ^A-APP.1200/2008; LA.APP.1212/2008;LA APP 1213/2008'IAapp 1211/2008; CKlNo.6957/2009(Cross-Obiec.io.s) LA APP I22S CM.No.384I/2009(Cross-ObjectionsV 7pi 1-fi?o.' ^-'^•APP-1241/2008& I^A.APP.1275/2008;LA APP I276/2o68-fl'lpp ' LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.I280/2008;LA APP'1281/2008•' ^fApn" LA.APP.1279/200 LA.APP.31/2009; LA APP 33/2009- ' faapp . / ' 1284/2008 LA.APP,42/2009 & CMNoS] ^ LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM No 7103/2009 ^ LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP95/2009 ^ LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.108/2009; LA APP 109/2009* TA ^ (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.136/2009; LA APP 3t LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP.140/2009; LA APP 143/2009•' Ta'app ^^'^PP-139/2009 LA.APP.162/'2'009; LA APP 187/2009-t o 145/2009 LA.APP.197/2009; LA APP 198/2009-t'a'appi LA.APP.191/2009 LA.APM02/2009;LA.APP,203/2009;'laAPP^oS^i (Cross-Objections);LA.APP210/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 LA.APP.2n/2009; LA APP220^ (Cross-Objections)- U.APP.224/2009;la^Pp'227SVa™ LA.APP.223/2009: (Cross-Objections); LA APP 241/2009-taTd CM.No.7206/2009 •LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP25^ LA.APP.246/2009; LA.A.PP.367/2009; LA APP 437/2009-r^A'APn^ ' LA.APP.305/2009; LA.APP,459/2009; LA.APP466/2009-T^apd LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP490/9009' Ta'appLA.APP.481/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP495/2009-APplnJnS ' LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.507/2009: LA APP 508/2009-t1 adI ' LA.APP.506/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP519/2009-r'Mpp LA.APP.510/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA APP 15/2010-ra fJo LA.APP.567/2009; LA.APP.404/20I0; LA.APP 13/2011- "TAa'^'p LA.APP.48/2010; LA.APP.II77/2008;LA..APP.120I/2068;l11pp:23^^^ LA.APP.1176/2008; 26/2002.2003Ca.ed23..0.20^olXtELTDe^;;i;'''^ (GRID-B) Rjsejye^on:Decemberf)R^ ?n// Pzonouncedon: January06^ 7017 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BJJWASAN) DEVENDERKUMAR Through; Mr.R.S.To,™r.Mr:vi;e"'^?rtg;, 'A.Apr Nlnufolot pr No.j.n/?.010&conneaedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Roiitray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with A4r.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhavi and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOi/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 filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Setti, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA LA./\PP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 .LA LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP..286/2010 LA LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M .APP. 49/2010 .APP. 54/2010 .APP. 59/2010 .APP. 223/2010 .APP. 277/2010 .APP. 284/2010 .APP. 289/2010 .APP. 313/2010 .APP. 348/2010 .APP. 352/2010 .APP. 357/2010 .APP. 760/2010 .APP. 362/2010 .APP. 407/2010 .APP. 588/2010 .APP. 725/2010 .APP. 731/2010 .APP. 764/2010 .APP. 364/2010 .APP. 99/2010 objections) •No. 964/2011 (Cross-LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (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. 28/2002-2003,'Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND I.A.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharthn! i.A,App.No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Dijwasan . A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanDur % (GRTD-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2017 LA.A.APP. ]11/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33,36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64,65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through; Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. . 111/2010 . 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 • 919/2010

6.-5/2011 120/2011 476/201] 523/2011 536/2011 LA.APP L A.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 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. . 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. . 155/2010 . 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 .577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 , 117/2011' 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 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 i-A.App.NO. .11.95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal WApp. K'O. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ••A.App. Mo. in/2010&connectedAppealscfVillagePochanpur % Awa,. No. 30/2002-2003dated09., CORAM; HON'BLEMR. .rUSTICESUNILGAUR ORDER

06.01.2012 Since,the groundson which enhancementof the compensationis jug t by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical -reforewith the consentof iea^-nedcot:nselfor the partiespresenta.' heanng of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pettainingto ^ot,J..aUonNo.FJ0m96-L&BfLAnS4I7dated ,3,2.2000,relating 0 geog,aph.cally contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and 1ochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder. 2-Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof •D.arka Pha^e- "^elh, commenced with tl,e issuance of Notificationof 2000 under Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, ,894. pe. ammg to vast tract of agi-icultural land in one compact block ieThairB-"""""""" •' Bijwasanand Poclianpur. • Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree mages stood acquiredby the RespondentsvidethreeseparateAwards No.2S/2002-2003;andAward ••Bl I .A. @?"3-82 lacs per acre for oc< A (level field •- with top soil) and @?I2 17 I Block'B'(withouttopsoil). ®' ' Dissat,sfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired

¶3V i.e., iaa'pp.'r ^ ' ^ Appealsof'SagepSp"ur agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board V5. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors" (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai V5^. State of Goa and Am.,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors V5. State ofHaryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 sec 444; Sangunthala

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

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon,

201.1(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DKI 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas V5. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALPi 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land'Acquisition Officer& Anr vs. M.K. Raflq Saheb, (2011) 7 sec 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, l.A.App No.119.'i/2008& connected Appeals of VillageBharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan IA.App. No. .111/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page7of29 Gujara, an, Ann. AIR 2001 SC 2424; Ha^yana State Industrial DevelopmentCo,pomtion,(2010) 11 SCC 175;RisalSingh&Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia&Ann, 2006(89)DRJ 527(DB);LaiChandvs. Union of India and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RanteshhhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Am, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValUyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Ann, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dauatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238-Kapil Mehra (Major General)&Ors.Vs. Union ofIndia&Anr 176(2011)DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vl Delh. DevelopmentAuthority&Ann, decidcd on 24.04.2008;Om Prakash(dead)byLRsamiOrs vs. UnionofIndia.(2004)10SCC627-Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA App' K^^656,,ooBtitled as SushUKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on .09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan.lea^d arguingcounsel for the appellams mt the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be "St understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be ad.,udgedkeepingin view tire developmentin the area overaperiodof •.meand fte sa,r,ecannotbe limitedto the nearfutr"-ealone.

¶7It was pointed out by MrR .S Tnm=, " n 11 •n . ' KS-Xomar.counsel lor appellantsthat 0«war..odhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biiiwa^an t roug-h the latrd ofVillageBharthal,dividingi. i"to .vo parts on the easternsideofthe railwaylineis the IGI Airport.New Delhi iHEriiEr— J.il/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarkaSub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFajni Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out Mr.S.K.Solanldlearnedcounsel for 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 establishingIndian Oil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmqntof DwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the ales sizras/ma.-pto highlightthatthe boundaiy of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool'Sirasare contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24"^ October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama l-A.ApD. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal l-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-">.App.Mo. 111/V.Olo&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • Page ,9 of 29 Reddi & Ors. vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & 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 be 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 appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageof sale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to ^57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCouitupon the minimumrates/circlerates for detenniningthe marketvalueof the acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is LA.App. No, 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App. No. 7.94/2010& connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO ratesofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,.appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds;- a) 'ignores the acbiowledgementon the part of the ' respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

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

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section5 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007 The Hon'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin IAApp. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof Village13harthal .A.Acp.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan IA.App. No. Ill,2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 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 averagingofdifferent ty^pes of sales transactions should be considered while ad.iud.icatingupon compensationupon a certanland. f) Relied upon judgment . dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value of the subject landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalue,ofthe land is w.iich higherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockA and ^13,36,000in BlockB in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inch^ding in Subh Ram vs.' State of Haiyana.2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No.l framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agricidturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinent to mention that the appellantlead evidencein respectofthe 74'^ amendment of the ConstitutionofIndia, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act M'as amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was electedfrom there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr v.?. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also I.A.App, No. 1195/2008&connectHdAppealsof VillageBharthal 1A.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur of29 yjoned.nmilarlysituatedlandas commercialblocks sadVT , T" 'concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland. subjectlandis even lower than the developmentpurposes of S::Z pZsTT/I ofDmslT I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24.10 1994 potentfalilyoTthelatdhndlnT'^ T, deteLi^^S alueZt"" hZTtitf"hr/" •

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA App No 7/2009,the factual detailshave beet> providedwithaprayerthat the jnantsOfth. appeai be treatedat par wUh the eo-appeiia"tsoft otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals. '4. Supplen^entingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe <ppellants,uwas urged by Mr.AnandYadav.Advocatethattl,eeffectof Ia'aw':No,' ' •A.App, NO. U1/2010& connected urbanizationofthe lands in the 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, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevantto determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the correctmarket value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin these appeals. ,

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified,copyof the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence-for determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connectedwith the land in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejectedby the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Am.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat sharpincrease in price in ashortperiod cannotbe taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidencethe seller LA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal I.A,App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No. in/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpiir and the purchaser as no prudent person having Icnowledgeof 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 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 of this Court inSushilKumar (supra)and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by .Mr.SanjayPoddar, learnedsenior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factored into, while fixing the minimum indicativeprice of the agriculturalland by the Governmentas on l"' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per annum, market value ol the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scopefor furtherenliancementfrom the priceof acquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@ 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the'decisionscited,what emergesisthatthetrue marketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto a willing LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.Acp. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/20,10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pagj 15 gf 29 seller and the best evidence is the comparablesale instances. While dealing with the questionofpotentialvalue ofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessirfg the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Vdho Bass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALL41 in thesewords:- . . • r" '

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

(n) the^suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as the case may be;

(iii) possibilityofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beputup on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin tlae vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions health care centres,-or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland Itself being in demandfor building purposes to specify a feM>. " , ^

¶18The potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpuiposesdependsupon alarge numberof factors.For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind tlie purposefor-IA.App. Mo, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal AmPP. No, 2;M/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan . lA.App. No. 111/2010&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 exemplarsofsmall piecesofland relied upon by the appellantscould not be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsoflargepiecesofland were not available.

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

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsrelied,upon on behalfof the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But,,it is equally tme 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 be referredto with advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal(Supra),while takingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent ,observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- iA.App Wo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal l-A.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur rage 17 of 29 Ihe legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highestofthe exemplars,which is a bonafide transaction, • will be considered. Where howeverthere are severalsales ofsimilarlandswhosepricesrangein a narrowbandwidth the average thereofcan be taken, as representing the marketprice. But where the values disclosedin respectof two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an irferencethattheyare with referenceto dissimilarlandsor that the lower value sale is on accountofunder-valuation or otherpricedepressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. " .

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note ofthe clmehingobsei-vations pertainingto detei-minationof fair niarlcetrate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Faklra Patil (Supra), Which are as follows:- It IS well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactionsin respectofthe land under acquisitionor in Its absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands possessingsimilar value or utilitytakenplace betweena willingvendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreedbetM^eenreasonableprudentpersons addingin the normalmarketconditionsare the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principlesto determinethe market-value ofthe acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd

(ONGC) (Supra),are as under:- Primanly, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situationof the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityoflandfor developm.entin t.ae area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. AA,.p. No. J195/2008&connectedAppealsof Village Bh^ •A.App. to. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan A./ pp. Jo. 111/20,10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur On the otherhand, in urbanorsemi-urbanareas, wherethe developmentisfaster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivity all around, the escalation in marketprice is at a much higher rate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalationsin prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreperyear, duringthe nineties.On the otherextreme in remote rural areas where there was no chance of 'am developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated Joryearsor rose marginallyatanominalrate of1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases m market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increasesin market value oflands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat bestbe i aroundhalfofIt. that is about5% to 7.5%per annum rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the absenceofclearandspecific ei idence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialremansfor applyingahigherrate ofincrease,or an) specific evidence relating to the actual increase in 7eZme Norimlly.recourseis takento the mode ofdeterminingthe market value byprovidingappropriateescalationover the piovedmarketvalueofnearbylands inpreviousyears (as udenceaby .mle tramactionsor acquisition),where there IS no evidenceofany contemporaneoussaletransactionsor 3T T!/ neighbourhoodThe said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale Z'^ZvTf "'""T acquisition that f « uptofourtofiveyears. Beyond l^ J '' «neighbouring land. Whatmay be areliablestandardifthe gap is Zfya fw years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandard • market,value of a land acquired in 1992. adopting the annual increase method with reference to a safe or |.A.App.No. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharth.l PP No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergodrasticchange apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease."

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Haiyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under;- "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have ) sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided anda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe samenotification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price whichvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ^62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang Beasmrespectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof the landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds [A.App. No 1195/2008&,connectedAppealsofVillage AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ([ix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/IO)indicatetliat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 Jacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-I/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establishthe advantagesattached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired Imd in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas dtsclosmgrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not ^ been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaidsale exemplars been 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 purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satmng, Beas'had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMammpurvide SaleDeed executedon 25" March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jm Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthatthe same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instam matters, though the land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuch priorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence thatthe acquiredlands were beingused for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomesevidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudem person having knowledge of prevailing ,U"0I0S

1.A 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.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the . Reference Court.

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

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice 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 developed lands 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.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreported as P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-"12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the price fetchedby sale ofplots in a. welldevelopedlayoutin tlae neiighborhood •\ \ App. No. :i.9li/2008 fi connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 22 of29 9-

¶31theprice fetched hv ^nl. r.fi reference to layoutof buildingplots in '*ihe7etZl^ood""uT°''''' reliedupon by anyoftheparties"with-e^"'''" which the nlot^ mulrl h r i' '^j^rence to theprice Puhlic^Jnt on thedateofthe 4(1) ofthe:Ltr hy the sales ofthe nUt. P^^cefetched neighborhoodof iie a plots in the whatllfiTdoZTtlfind ,f """1 the acquiredland with referLce to th"T publicationunderSection4(1) oftheUZi'T increase to be given shall not exceed acquiredla,^- '"'"'"'"'Sphts even ifformed in the ,C7ZI7""'""""*•' "•"""™'"" °-' T. ? " ••"" ""••"•"""""•""»' .--r;:r:;r:r::rr " «"",,.",,^ :lz IaJp.'no"; " i-A.App.No, :Uj/20:o&connpctpd.'^'^'^'"1^ofVillageBIjwasan connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, Ifind that the ReferenceCourt has nghtlynot adoptedthe DDA ratesfor allotnrentofdevelopedlandor the DDA's Pre-Deten"inedRates fof alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease methodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalueofthe land questionwhiletalcingintoconsiderationthe,earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar learnedsen,orcounselfor the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat tlie compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000. i.e., for the period intervening the Not,ficat.on for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Not,f,cat,onfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixedby. the LandAcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancementgranted by the' Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictumof the Apex Court ,n Lai Chand(Supra),cautioningthe Courts to adopt . progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acqu,redland only when the gap is of4-5 yea,-sand beyondthat it may bc^unsafe, even ,f ,t relates to aneighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap isofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafe and un.-el.ablestandardwhere tire gap is larger.In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka >ase-Il,S ofs,xteenyearsand therefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe >™de of determining the market value by providing appropriate pp. •"1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • I # escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the lespondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unM^an'anted as a cooidinatebench ofthis Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in ciushilKumar (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 viewof the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice 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 fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deservesto be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by the learned counsel 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 urban.It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut thatby itselfis not sufficientto l-A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. No. 2.q4/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No, 1.1.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur T prcume .hat the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being aZ «pectofthere betngany developmentin ^d aroundthe acquiredlands .n questton. Not only thi, even .he saie exemplarsof ^asa"g. eas heavtlyrehedupon by the appellantsdisclosetl,atthe sale the saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose. Rathe, it emerges from .he evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section 4of the i and Acn •>• . . OQ. ^-and AcquisitionAct, .the acqurredlands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been •ncrease mpncedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe « a..,. " _ appellantscouldhave laidtheirhands on othersale instancesin the area •n ^.esfon But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the saleofthe land of VI, g samalkha(Ex.PW-l/ll)without leading any evidence to . ..3h. at,the,uaiityand potentialityofthe saleexemplarsof..... Villa I "" »d the sale exemplarof an r th" Vdlag Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/il) cannot be treated to be sufficient « .0 gran, highercompensationwhile relyingupon the aforesaid ^ale ...tanccTherefore,in view of the afore-referreddictum of the is for the I d""" deset^esto be awarded ro; the lands acqu.redunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed hv th^ n Delhi wl b Governmentfor .he agriculturalland in ; . rise of price due to higher potentiality.Talcing note of .he fact that th. • ^ 8ap between what ".«pp Nonwoio. would be expectedto be the marketgrowth and what the market had •.=tv.ally grown,Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe marketvalue ofthe acquired ands.n Ja.S.ngh(Supra)as well as inSmhilKumar(Supra)andIfind no reasonto takeadifferentviewthan the one whichhad beentakenby coord.nateBench of this Court in the aforesaid eases ofMSingH (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).

¶38This Court is ofthe consideredview that the ReferenceCourtin the matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasatt has ng tly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural an s Delhi to fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands in question jndmgoftheReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village aj-san,Ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situation ofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplat.is borne out from the evidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acqu,redlands being in close vicinityoftheIGI Ai^ort.IndianOil and mrat PetroleumDepots ™d ofRailwayline passingthrough Village larthal and there being a100 meters vide road startingfrom NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarlcaSub-City,PattIand PartII, dividingthe aequn-ed lands tn two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicmityoftheacquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionofthe ReferenceCourt.In the consideredopinionofthis Court,on accountof aid locationaladvantages,the acquiredlandsin question,certainly ^sumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I Wat persuadesthisCourtto grant 10% increaseover»d abovemarket value of tlte acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on accountof the higlterbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the .J settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCO 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the, possibilityof the acquiredland, being usedfor puttingup buildings in the immediateor near future, such-conclusion , would be sufficientto hold that the acquired land had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein price attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto provide a definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broad probabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesmeto treat,them with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the'acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decisionin Sushil Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover,and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof LA,App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan -LA.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Ihe appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^Sforthe Category'A' land and@?14,69,600/-per b^forthe Catefc^' lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894as explainedin' the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid.Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42Ihe above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the Cfflnpensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar Generalofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordiiiglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb A-App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal A.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwa.^an IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur C (SUNILGAUR) JUDGE J IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA Through: Mr.B.S.M^n,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJaipS, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocate. Mr.Rohtas,Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.RS.Negiand iMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.SK.Rout,Mr,B.K.Routray.Advocates. M-.N.S.Neg,and Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefor Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOF INDIA&AiSfR Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewT"''®' * Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwa,n,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran AdvocatesforLAC/UOI MrR''Tu' ^^'S K-Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh Mr.BankeyBihar.Sharma.Mr.KunalSharmafnd Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: HON'BLEiWR.JUSTICESUNILGAUR % order

12.01.2012 (For i." ,h, Page 1 ; '"7 ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen given to 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 counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb IAApp.No.1195/2008 -"°°^«LGAUR) JUDGE Page 2

% + r % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 918/2010 VIMAL PARKASH TANWAR Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through; Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 Appellant Mr.B.D. Shanna, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR