Rishal Singh & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as Ranbir Sharina vs. Union o/ India & Anr.'. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb * IN TUE HIGH COURT OF DELIPH AT NEW DELHI (1 -' • (1 - Reseiveci on: Wovenihc'i' 1 S, 2011

(GRII)-A) 1-.APP.1 1951'2008 (VILLGF-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHART\IIA Appellant Ihrough: vir.B.S.}Viaan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.iai Prakash, lVils.Smita • Maan, 4r.R.S.'Verina, l\4r.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates I\4r.Anind 'Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, .. Mr.Rolias, Advocate. • Mr. Raghuvi ii dcr Godar a, Advocate Mr.N..Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K1.Rou.t and lVIr.B.K,Routiav, Mr.1/1.Azarn Ansari. Advoctes, Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajsh Yada. M.r.l)eep1k Khosla, Mr.Sai.tht K.hosla and.MrDhananjav Mehlawât, Advocates MrJI . S. RaueIa, A dvoc.ate Mr.I.SDahiya. Advocate Mr.Sandccp Thakhir. Advocate Mr.Atu.l Jiipathi. Advocaie, Nv1Ir.N.S.Ne2j and Mr.lI.S.Rauteta,, (Advocates Ii r respon(,[ent in appcals filed b IJOI.) versus L/NION OF' INDIA & AN Respondcnrs '1 hruuoh: Mr.Sanjav Poddar. cnior Advocate Wjii Mr. PtiiaIc Mr Mol). trac, adfia ,ml , andN/k-N oo ' nit J\4s K Kaumudi FTh &d\uLa for I I 'JuT Mr.Aja Veripa, .'is.Becnashav SouL lVjrlVjukcsh K.uniiar, Pvlr S .K ,Schi, i\'Ir.Pa'vnn 1'viathiu. 'vir. K unal Sharma Advocatc; kOi DD/\ •A.APP.4 2/2008 &.. CM Np409(Y200S (CTOSS-Ohjcctiofls). LA. APP.1i2'20O8 .1 ..A.APP.45311008: LA.APP.688/2008 . CM. No.5990/2010 (Crosv UbiecUons); .A.APP.97/20o8 & CM.N.43:;!2u(p;' .:rssohjeetio7s): .i\ .APP.70 I /2008 & CM. No S 10/2009 (CtOS-OOCI.Ii L . APP. 76820(P0, I. . APP .77(V2000, • I.A.Ap. No., I i9,/2QQ. & c000octed Appeills of Vilugo BhoUioI 0 .Aop. No. 294/2W.O & corucced Appo.k 01 ViII', 131 wesn I AApp. i\,• III. /711:10 & ':onnociod Appea 01 ViIIge Ichnpur IThge 1 e \- LA.APP.77 1 12008 & CM ±1o.425/2009 (Cross-Ohjections) LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APJ?.773/2008 & CM.No3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.61 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.82/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008 LA.APP.7f84/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP. 798/2008 & CM.No.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.93 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.05/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.81 3/2008 & CM.No. 1 795/2009 (Cross-Obljections); LA.APP.8 14/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1.A.1PPL8 1 8/2008; L.A.APP.8 1 9/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.AP]'.844/2008}A.APP.45/2008: LA.A.PP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/201 1 roOjectii; LA.APP.92/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901,'2008; LA.APP91 .5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Odections): LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 &. CM.1'o.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.'78/2008; 1.AAPP.986i'2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.93!2008;L.A.APP. I 029/2008& CM.No. 1 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); I.A.APP. 103 1/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); 1 A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.1'1o.599/2009 (Cross-Ob)ections); LA.APP. 1 046/2008;

1.A.APP. I 047/2008;LA.APP. 1048/2008& CMNo.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CMJ'o.420,'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008; LA.APP. 1 051/2008 & CM.Nb. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.N.41 6/2009 (Cross-Ohjections);LAAPP. 1054/2008 & CM No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1055/2008;LA..APP. 1057/2008 & CM No.752/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 059/2008 & (M.No:1 7259/2008(Cross-Ohjections); LA.AP1. I 060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No;546/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1A.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Ol)ections);

1...A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APII. 1 081/2008 & . CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Ohjections):, LA.APP. I 084/2008& CM.N. I 7302/2008 (Cross-Objecticis); T,.A.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross ]Objections): I A.APP. I 087/2008& CM No.61 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.APP. I 094'2008; LA.APP. 1 095/2008; LA.APP. 11 03/2008 & CM.Np.44 1/2009 (Cross-Oljections);JAAPP. 11 08/7008 & CM.N.3839/2009 . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008: LA.APP. 1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objec.tions);. LA.APP.1 111/2008; [.A.APP.1 1 12/2008 & CM.No..3X3 1/2009 (Cross-Obcctions): LA APP. 1112/2008 & CM.No.3826!2009 (Cioss-Objections); L.A.APP.1 115/2008; .[..A.APP.1 116/2008; LA.AP].-). 1121/2008;, LA.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP. 1129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objcc6ons); i.A.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP. 113.1/2008 & CMN.566/2009 (Cross-Obccons): L.A.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP.1 135/2008 & CM No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.N9. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA..APP. 1 140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; 1,A.APP1 157/2008; LA.APP. 115.8/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 159/2008; LA.APP.1 161/2008; LA.APP. 1166/2008; LA.APP. 11 6'7/2008 & CM.tJo.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1168/2008; LA.APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP.I 171/2008; LA.APP. 1172/2008; LA.APP. 117.3/2008; L.A.APP. 11 75/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; L.A.APP. 1179/2008; L.A.APP. 1181 '2008; LA.APP. 1182/2008; LA.APP 11 83/2008& CM.No.6933!2009 (Cross-Ob)eci:ioiis); I A APP 1184/2008 1 A APJ 11 S'?00 I A APP Ii 86/2008& CM No /01 '2009 I A.App. No. 1.95/2008 8 connected Appeals of Village l?harthal l.A Ape. No. 29/1/201.0.& connected Appeals of 'Jillage Bijwasn l.A,App. No .:L.1,i/2010 & connected Appeak of Village Pchanoui - 'age 2 01 29 (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP. 11 90/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008: LA.APP.1 193/2008; LA.APP.1 194/2008; 1,A..APP.1 195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; : LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.N.6935/2009ross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008; LA.APP. 12 12/2008; LA.APP.1 21 3/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM..No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APR 1226/2008; LA.APP. I 241/2008& CM.No.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP: 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008; I A.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; LA. APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.A1P, 1284/2008; LA.APP. 3 1/2009; LA.APP 33/2009; 1,A.APP.37/2009; LA.AP.P.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.Jo.746/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.o.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.741/2009; 1,A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.9/2009 & CM.No.953/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP: 12 1/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP.1 38/2009; LA.APP.1 39/2009;

1.A.APP. 140/2009;LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 1451/2009; I A.APP. 162/2009; LA. APP. 187/2009: LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP. 197/2009; LA.APP. 1 98/2009: LA.APP. 199i'2009; LA.APP.201/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP. 203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027112009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 10/2009 & CM.No.970/201 1 (Cross-Objections); I.AAPP.21 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009;

1.A.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223112009;

1.A.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objetions); LA.APP 241/2009; LA.APP.245!2009; LA.APP.246/2009; LA:APP.249/2009; LA.APPi257/2009;

1..A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP,305/2009; i..A.APP.367/2009; LA.APPi437/2009; LA.AP?.447/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APPi466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009: LA.APP.48 1/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP490/2009; [A.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.494i'2009; LA.APP495/2009; LA.APP .503/2009: LA.APP,506/2009;

1.i\.APP.507/2009; LA.APPJ508/2009; L.A.App.509/2009: LA.APP.5 10/2009: LA.APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP5 12/2009: LA.APP.5 13/2009: LA.APP.567/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP451/201 0; LA.APP.48/20i 0; I .A.APP.404/2010; LA.APPJI3/201 1: LA.APP. 1138/2008: LA.APP.1 1 76/2008; LA.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP.1201/200$, LA.APP.23 1/2009 k~ /77/ . (Relating to Notification N. F.10(30)/96/LB/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Iand Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23. 10.202, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) Ieserved on: December 08, 2011 Pionc iicj5,2012 '1 .LA.APP. 294i'2010 (VILLA(;E.-. BIIJWASAN).

i)EVEND[R KUMAR .. . .. Appellant Througi: Mr.R, S ' nar, Mr.Vireridra Singh, ii.f'pp. No 1195/2003 & coiinecierl Appeals of village 9harUial ..is.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasiin A.App No.111/2010 & connected Appeals of \/illage Pc chanpur . Advocates I Mr.S.K.Solankj 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 Throug : Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advoèates for UOI/L.AC • Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Sirigh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr,Bankey .Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010. LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55 0010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 L.A.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70112010. LA.APP. 100/2010 •LJ\.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 J.A.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP.. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 2811/2010 LA.APP. 282/010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP, 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/201.0 LA..APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 3451/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.AP1. 349/2010 iA.A.PP. 350/2010 .. L.A.APP. 35112010r LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742.12010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 IA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/201.0 L..A.i-PP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/20 JO LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 L'-\APP. 722/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LAAJP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 JA.APP. 727/2010 LA.A1P. 729/2010 i.A:APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 7322010 LA.APP.. 750/2010 J.A.APP. 759/2010 L.A.APP. 764/2010 LAIAPP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010LA.APP. - br 861/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 8 0/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.MNo. 94/201 1 (Cross-objectiOns) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30 )96L& B/LA/i 34 1.7 dated 13. 12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasn, Delhi) . AND . A.App, No. 1 195/2008 & connecCed AppeaLs of Village Bha -11 LA.App. No. 291201() & connected 4ppeals of ViHage Bijwt 'J. 1.1 /2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Poch MW . (GRID-C) Rervedon:_December jJO]J Pronounced on.' JanuaryJO12 LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAE POCHANPtJR) SE1-1AJ RAM AND ORS. Through Appellants Mr.B .D. Sharma, 1\4r. 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 to49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.H. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) .Mr.R.ajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) Respondents Mr.Saijay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr S anj ay Kurn ar Pathak, Mr,Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.N.avljn Swain., Advocates for UOi/LAC .Mr.Ba.nkev Biharj Sharma, ]\4r.Kuna1 Sharm a and Mr. S omer K, Seth, Advocates for DDA. .

versus .JJ\JiON Oi JNI)IA & ANR ThrOiigh: LA.APP. 111/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 1A.A1P. 254/2010 LA.APP. 292/2010 LA.APP. 307/2010 LA,APP: 395/2010 LA.APP. 420/2010 LA.APP. 466/2010 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP, 660/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010 LA.APP. 919/2010 LA.APP. 65/2011 LA.APP; 120/2011 I A APP. 476'20 11

1.A.APP. 523/2011 LA.APP. 536/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA. A PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA . APP. LA. i-\ PP. LA.APP. LA.AP1. LA.APP. LA .APP, LA.APP. LA . APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 65/2010 48/20l0 60/2010 93/201,0 31 7/201(1) 96/201 0 432,2010 489/201 0 39/20 10 62/20 10 '68/20I0 11052/201 0 116/201 1 1/21/2011 #5/2011 55/20i I 54/20i 1 1,A.APP./155/200 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 LA.APP. 261/2010 LA.APP. 305/2010 LA.APP. 392(20 10 l.A AlP. 397/2010 LA.APP. 433/2010 LA APP. 577/2010 LA.APP. 640/2010 LA APP. 741/2010 LA.APP. 784/2010 LAApp: 61/2011 LA.A.PP. 117/2011 L.-.APP. 129/2011 L.A.APP. 521/2011 LA .A PP. 526/20 1 1 LA.APP. 591i'201 I LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.AP]P, 215/2010 LA.APP. 250/2010 LA.APP. 270/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 LA.APP. 393,2010 LA.APP. 412/2010 LA.AJP. 434/2010 LA.APP. 635/2010 .LA.APP. 657/2010 LA.APP. 758/20110 LA.A1P. 918/2010 LA.APP. 64/2011 LA.APP. 1191/2011 LA.APP. 420/201 I L.A.APP. 522/2011 LA.APP. 535/201 1 IJ\App. No. J 195/2008 & connected Appes of ViIIaie Bhr LA./\p. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViUago Bijwas LA.pp No 11117010 & connecterJ Appeals of ViUage Pocha (Relating to Notificati

13.12.2000 issued under Award No. 30/2002-2003 No. F. 10(3 0)96-L& B/LA/i 3417 dated ion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & d 09.12.2.002, Village Poch.anpur, Delhi) . CORAM: RON' B LE MR. JUSTICIj SUNIL GAUR ORDER % 06M1.2012 • •. •l . Since the gfounds o 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 Noti/Iccit/o,i IVo.F. 10(309-L& 131°LA..11341 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiuous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. ,2. •. Acquisition process for planned development of 'Dwarka Phase-I! in i)cl.hi, commenced with, the issuance of Noti/Ication of I3 December, 2000 under SH.tion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one . compaci block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., l3harthal, BijWasan and Pochaiipur. Agi-icultura.l land of he appellants herein in the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-203• Award No.28/2002-2003 ;and Awaid No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation

13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field wih to1) soil) and

12.32 laes Per acre flr 13 lock 'B' (\;\Tjti]out top soil). 1)issa,tisfjed with the sessment of market value of their acquired LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village 3 I.A.App. No. 29"12010 & connected Appeals of Village Bij !.A.App. No. 11:/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Po Page 6 ci 79 .. agricultural lands, appellaits had sought reference under Section 18 of the Lana' Acquisition Act, 894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced cmpensation @ Z15.00 . lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A and@ l.3.36 lacs per acre for thei,r Block '13' land in IVillages Bharthal and Bijwasan; ihercas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, fuiihai-thal her enhancement of compe nsation sought by the appellants of Villages and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants ot'Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate oF Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the slape of decisions in Eecuth'e Engineer, Karn utah a Ho using Boa Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246; A

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh

(2910) 1 SCC 444; San Tehsildar (Land A cquisit an (/ A nr, vs. Union of I vs. Lund Acquisition Officer, Gadag and ani Main Dessui vs. State of Goa and Anr., am and Ors vs. State of Hariyuna and Anr., unthala (Dead) through LRs, Vs. Special n) & Ors., (201 0) 3 5CC 661; Ranvir Singh a AiR 2005 SC 3467; chindha Falkiro Patil

(D) through LRs vs.The Special Land Ale quisition Officer9 Jaigaion, 201 1(2) SCALE 321; Jái La! i's. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Ranii A1and (since deceaed) thtouh LRs vs. Union of India & Al nr, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udiw Dass vs. State of Harpana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; clukas vs. State of Pun/ab Ors.. 2011 ('9) SCAt i 362; A vinash Dl'ai'tiji A1uiI vs. State of Maithrahtra, (2009) 11 SCC 17 1; Atina Sin g1l (Dead) thvwgh LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008)2 SCC 568;W.P.(C) No. 41.4/2003 titled as Smt. indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabht & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs M,K Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 7 1 4.; Thakarsihha Dev/ibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, LA.App. No. I 19!/2008 8 connected Appeals of Vilkige hartha .AApp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No 13 1,20.1.0 & connoctod Appeals of Village Pchanpur . Ga/unit and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Ilaryana State Industrial Development Coiporation, (2010) ii SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors, Vs fUnion of India & Ant0, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Chand vs0 Union of India and Anr, (2009 15 SCC 769 General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Raineshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! and Ant, (2008) 14 sec 745; VallipammcJ and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and /nr., AIR 20111 SC 2937; Kirun Tandon vs. Allaluthad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatra' Thirthkur vs. State of Mitharashira, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kupil Meh ra (Major Gen rat) & Os. Vs. Union of india & Ant 5. 176(2011) DLI 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007 titled as Surut Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ant., decided on 24.04.2008; Om .Prakash ('dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 sec 627; Satpai & Ors vs. uniH of india, (1997) ii SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Suhi! Kumar vs. Union of india, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. N.59/2007 titled as Bed Rm vs. Union of • india, decided on 07.06.2011; and. Bhuie Rum vs. Union of, India, 201 ()

(170) DLI 371. On the strength of t e aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.13.SMaa. learned arguing counsel for the api:ellarits that the location and situation of the ac.uired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must he adjudged keeping in viw he development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot b6 limited tothe near future alone. It was pointed out by Mr.RSTom.ar counsel for appellants that I)eihi-Rewari.-Jodhpur broid gage raiway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bhrthal, dividing it into two pans, i.c on the eastern side of tie railway line is the 101 Airport, New Delhi . . L/\.1\Op. No. 119/2003 & connected Appeals of Village Bhbrihal I A.App. No. 29/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijasan I.A.f\pp. No. 1.1:1/210 & connected Appeals of Village Podpanpur • and Oil I)epots of Indian i)iI and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from 1,111-8 from Shiv Murti towards I)warka Sub-City Part-I and Part-Il agLn divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern Side, where Ieveloped Farm Houses are located on the land of Vi11ages Bharthal, Iijwasan and Sama,ilda. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learied counsel. fOr the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Iharthal was first acquired for the extension of 1(31 Airport in the yeir 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Rharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of I)warka Phase-i and the lands on the western sid of Villages. Barnnoli and I)hool Siras were also acquired for the deelopment of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the ks sizras/rnap to highlight that the boundary ol' Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village i)hool Siras are Contiguous. It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the Potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquied land to be .gricu1turai in spite of Notification of 6' October, 2000 1,id.e which land use of the three villages in question was hanged frm agrictiltura! to cesidential/ commercial/industrial etc. aifìd infact the entire land of Village Bhaii:hai had ceased to he rural in viei of the NotJjcatjon of 24° October,1 994, It was argued with 14uch vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout learned counsel for the appellants tht the a!hrbsaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Riefereuce Court by relying upon P. Rama I A.Ap. No. 1 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BhartaI A App.. No. 294/2010 & cor!nectea Appea Is of village Bijwasan. LA.ilpp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeak of Village Pochanpur - . Reddi & Ors, vs. Land Ael Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has ben considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Hwyana & Ors, 20.10(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must he adjudged keeping in view the deve1prnent in therca 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 noE put the land to any use, it would not mean that thçre is no buildii1ig potentiality. 1 0. Reliance was placed by Mr.B.DSharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied froi.52 lacs to Z62 lacs and merely because of the saic variation, these sale exemplars cannot he thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, becaLise there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special adv1tntages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Cort in Anjam Holm Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr,, (201.0) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to he taken as representing the flrket price ...t,the land which comes to T5, lacs per acre and since the sle exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the coni parable sale intances, therefore, rd i ance placed by the Reference Court upon the mdimum ratcs/ëircle rates tor determining the market value of the acquired and is patently erroneous.

¶1Assessment of marketvalue of the .aoquired land was souçrit' )y MiR.Godara learned counsi for the appellants On the basis of the L& ernmcnt and also on the basis of prc-e Government for all otmeni of alternate. :eeping in view the location, situation and potentIality of the acquired lnd, dc'i,ëminatjoii of its market value is LA/pp No. 11951'2008 & conncctd Ape;s of Village Bharthai L/\.App, No. 294/2,010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App Nn. 111/2010 A connected Appeals of V4Iage Pochenppr Page ii) of 29 .' IX) rates fixed by the Go determined rates fixed by 't' plots in the year 2000-2001 sought on the strength of hale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in DwarIKia Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsi, appellant Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- r, ~I;, a) ignores the acidiowledgement on the part of the respondent about the A.ward No. 26/2002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course qf the • proceedings Civil Writ petiTion No.19012 of 2006. (Reftrred to in cross-exam incitiori of appellant dated

77.2007) I /4 Does not account Lfor the tct that the Public Notice dated 18.9. 1987 adverseiji qffected the rates of land in the area fbr more 1 1 ("an 15 years hfore the Notification under Section 5 of the Land 4cquisitien Act, 1894 i.vas issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.92001 issued b}1 the Government of Nattonal Capital Territory of Delhi ij not in accordance with the law laid down by various dcis ions including in one of the inure recent decisions of the Hon 'hieSiipteme Court in Sangunthala versus f Tak',iidar. 2010(3) SCC 661. d). ignores the evidene and other Jciors which as• per established law has to he Cons kierea' heJre ascertain in the value of the ian under acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the 1on'hle Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda ifakira i'aiil versus Special Land Acquzsjtion Officer, Civil Apeal N0.5475 of 2007. The [Ion 'bie Supreme Cnirt has specifically held that Sale Deed showing high4r rate should not he disregarded in IJ\.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VUlage Bhartf U\.App. No. 294/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Rijwas L/VApp. No. 11/200 & connected Appeals of Village Pochan Mi /7 case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Mo/u Dessai vs. Stte of Goa, 2010(23) SCC 710, the Supreme Court ha also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transaction should be cons ideréd while • adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. B l?elied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC .No.97A/2006 to de'ide 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 andi 13,36,000 in Block B in violation • of the law laid .don by the Hon'ble Supreme Cout including in Sub/i Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) 5CC 444; As a cnsequence, the impugned /udginent • . reftt'sed to return an actual finding on the issue No. I framed on 27.2.2007. Evaluated the land as agricul1ual land although vide • IVotzjication of the v1unicial Corporition of Delhi, the land use of Villae Dhooi Siras and Bharihai was changed and these areas ceaed to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan aid ot!iicatZons of Government for land use change chow that th fi.dure • land can be subjected to res'ide;itia, commercial and. other • - permissible iises, It is also pertinent to menticin that the appellant lead evidhce in re1:)cct o/the 74" amendment of the Constitution c?f Indic,. wef 1.6. 1993 IX ii, by • . virtue of which the Municia7 Corporation Act was cimended and the crea where the land is situated, was deemed a municipa area and.thè municipal Counsellor was elected from there.. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. . Refused to apply the laii. , laid clown in All? Supreme Court 347, RanviiF .Sigh and Anr vs. Union of india and refused to consider the téct that the development in the area has a dircjc, effrct on the price that a willing purchaser would pai;/or the subject lane!. /) ignored the fhcl Iwt I? po.vidc'nt No. 2 had also Lt\.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of ViPage bhartf LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwsa LA.App. No. 11112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochan pu r Page 12 0129 'S auctioned similarl situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about Z.2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly junderdeveloped land. D The valuation of tl'e subject 'liid is even lower, than the pre-determined aution rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situat d land. k L)oes not take into account the possibility (?f change of the use of the lanc although the land was acquired for development purpbses of: Dwarka Phase R. it is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bhart'hal was chaiged and these areas ceased to he agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) lgnored NotfIcatios dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although the)) cearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. 'in Sangunt'hala v. Tahsildar LA), (2010) 3 SCCH 661 it was held that the purpose for which land is ac'uirecl is, a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building poteniaiitv to be used fOr building ]2urpoes in immediate or in near future needs to be conside,ed. in) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lancii were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As aportin of the landis ieing considered as house site, the adjining lands have the potential of being put in better ue as house sites in the near /Oture.

¶13In. the brief synopsis 6y 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 ti7ted at par with tile co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. O

¶14Supplementing the appellants, it was urged by LA.App. No.1 19512008 & connected Appeals of Village 13harthi.

.A,App, No. 794/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwassn J\.Aop. No. 1111200 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanp said arguments advanced on behalf of the Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of Page 13 0129 I - I urbanization of the lands i i the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considebed in Makesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. Stafr of MaIi.arashtra, AIR 200. SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major Generai).& Ors. Vc. Union of India & Anr, 1.76(2011) Di.T 361 and that Pre-l.)etermined Rates, Rescrvd 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 appel1aits are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Referenc.e Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired l2nds, Thus, enhancement of cOmpensation reflecting just, fair and adecjuaic mafket value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior ConseJ urged that though as pci - Section 51 -A of h7flc/1ICqUIsition Act I84, a certified copy of the Sale i)ecd is an admissible evidence but th same cannot he taken as relevant evidence for determination of the hiarket value unless and until the same is pi:operly connected with the land in 'question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the 'iIlagc etc. are also required to he considered and the sale instances reiie. upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquird lands have been illegally rejected by the Rcfei-ence Court and while lacing reliance upon the decisions in Jai LI vs. Union of India, 2002 '62) DRJ 227, Satpai & Ors vs. Ua'ilm of India, (1997) ii scc 423 La! Ghand vs. Union of India and A nr.,

(2009)15 SCC 769; LA. AP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kunwr vs. Union of India, decided on26,09201 I, it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cainot he taken, to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are cxjlai:cd by producing in evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Vihage Sha thai LA.App. No. 294/2010 & cOnnected Appeals of Village B1jwa 1san LA.App. No. ,LU/7.011) & connected Appeals of Village PochanpLlr ' .5 and the purchaser as no dent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the would pay such a higher pay as reflected in •the sale instance of Rac .a Swami Salsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& 1)0 rates/Pre-I)etermjned Rates cannol be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lal Ghnd (supra) which has been fllowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumnar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16SC) far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by M.r.Sanjay i:oddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross_ objectors that the same hs already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price lof the agricultural land by the Government as on 1 April, 2000 and annum, market value o determined by the Refe appreciation @ 10% per that there is no scope for 1 - granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per the acquired arids has been erroneously ice Court as in Sushi! Kumar (sipra) mm has been grnted. Thus, it is submitted ther enllanc.einent from the price of acquired ianus as nxea by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be m deleting the enhancement by the Reference Couit while takihg into cOns idcrtion the appreciation I 2% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation Ec 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid .xtent.

1.7. Aftei considering the rival submissions advanced by both the. sides and upon close perusl of the impugned jidgineni., the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is.that the true market value of the comparable land is the price aid:by willing purchaser to a willing L.App. No, 1195/2008 & c000ectod Appeals of ViU8e Bharthi A ipp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasan IA.App. No. 1 1112010 & connected Appeals of Village POch1,npur • seller and the best evidencp is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question o potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands • reiterated by the Apex Court in Udiw Dass vs. State of Hw ana & Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in hese words:- • "(iv the situation ofhe acquired land vis-a-vis the city or • the town or vilage which.had been growing in size • because of its oinmercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive jopula1jon;

(ii) the suitability oj the acquired land/or putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or • industrial, as thç case ma.' be, possibility of obtcuning water and electric supply for occupants qf buldtngs to be put: up on that laid; absence of statthory impediments or the like fbr using the acquired lanfor building purpose; existence of highways, p.z.17?fic roads, layouts qf building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or clse proxiniit' of the acquired ian benefIts or advntriges of educational institutions, health care cenres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may, become available to the o 1 ccupiers ol buzldzngs, i/built on the acquired land; aid (i;ll) lands around th acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand Jr building purposes, to specl,/j afew"

¶18The potentiality of lan4 for the purr)ose. of develojment as also for building purposes depends ujon a large nLlnlber of lactors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose Rr p, ..t.i.i:,I woo & connecterJ Appeals of Village l3hrthal IAApp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village 3ijwasah LA.App. No. 21112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanur which the lands were sougi t. to be acquired but also the subsecient events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Ap.ex Court in Avinash (supra); While reiteLting the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquire lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land relied UOfl by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. ds

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

¶714The legal proposition wI ich emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that wher there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having siltilar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground 1)f distance betweei similarly situated lands and the acquired land. It is a well establishd proposition of law that the burden of ro\1ing the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired th agricultura land for a particular purnose. But it i is equally true that the awarded is on the claimant. • of provirig inadequacy of compensation For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon($upra) can be referred towith advantage Apex Court in VaillywthiaI ('Supra). while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutins, l'iospitals etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards developmeit charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Ajcx Courti in Anjani iWo/u Dessui (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- A.App. No. 1195/2008 & coririecfed Appeals of Village Bharthi A.App. No. 294/2010 & connocted.Appeak of ViI!age Bijwasar [A.App. No, 111,2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochan p,u Page 17 0129 • "The legal position is that even, where there are several exemplars with refcçrence to similar lands, usually the highesi of the exe1npars, which is a bona fide transaction, will he considered. Where however there are several sales. of sim i/ar land whos i prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average tiereofF can be taken, as representing the market price. But wlere the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markdiy di rehi it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account. of under-valuation. or other Price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted tol It would be worthwhile to take flote of the clinching observations pertaining to deterrnination of fair market rate of acquired lands macic by the Apex Court in Clindho Fakira Pall! (Supra), which are as follows:- 'ft is well settled that genuine and bona .fide sale transactions in respci of the laid under acquisition or in its absence the honaflde sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisitin of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility take place between a willing vendee and he willing vendor ill hich could be expected to reflect the true value, as agree between 'eosonah/e prudent persons' acting in the normal ?narket conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. Principles to determie the inarkei, value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Couh in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the incrase in land prices depends on jur ftictors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, aailabiliti.' of land for development in the area, and the dmand for .767..d in the area, in rural areas unless, there i any Prospect of oevelopmeni in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, siead; and gradual, wtthout any uciden spurts or jumps. A,App. No. I 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Viilage Bhapthal cAApp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwsari - LAApp. No. 111/201,0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochrpur . Page 18 ot 29 S On the other hand, in, urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faste', where the demand fbr land is high and where there is construction: activity all around j the escalalioti in markei price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural aijeas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid developmeviI and high demand fbr land, the escalal Ions in price haves touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, durin the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rura.l areas where there was no chance of any development and hadly any, buyers, the prices sta.gnqted fr years or rose ma1ginaiA) at a nominal rate of] % or 2% per annum. There is thus a sign ificarit difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/senu-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore iff the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10%. to 15% per annum, the corresponding ih.reases in rural areas would at best be only around half of i4 that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thurtib refers to the ,generai trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specUIc evtdence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for 1pplying a higher rate of increase, or any spec iflc evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the incr9ase to be app/ted would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse Lk taken to the mode of determining the market value by proi iding appropriate escaiatio ii over the pi"oved.markel value of nearby lands in previous years (Os evidenced by sale trOnsact ions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of anycontemporc/neous sale transactions or acqutsittons of compctrabie lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasbnabiy saft where the relied-on-sale t;ami'actions/acquisitins precedes the subject acquisition by only aew yedmTs, hai is upto tour IL five years. Beyond that it may be unsaf, even if it re/ales to a nei!mbourinc land. What may be al i'e/iahle s tariciard if tie gap is only a Jew years, may hec4me una/i and unreliable standard where the gap is larker. For example. for determining the market value of a lnd acquired, in 1992, adopting the annual increasC met hod ii.' ti i'm ve/erence to a Sale or l,A.App. No. I 195;200P & connected Appeals of Village Bhakhal .A.Apo. No. 29/l/201() & connected Appeals of Villageiiw4an LA,App. No.1] .iimoio & connected Appeals of Village Pochmnpjr Page :19 of 29 acquisition in 1970 olt 1980 may have nzany pitfalls. This is because, over the curse of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself wdergo drastic change apart from the. likelihood ofoccurren1ce of varying periods of stagnation in prices or suddth'i spu4s in prices affecting the very standard 0/increase. "

¶24'I'his Court is mindful 10 f the dictum of the Apex Court in Hwyww State Industrial Dei'eiopine)t Corporation (HSIDG) (Supra), regarding computation of dornpensatf on for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods: What was said by the Apex Court in HSJI)C • (Supra) is as under:- When different categories of lands (or lands itui derent si1uailonaladvantages) are acqui;ed for the same purpose, .cci' /or torming of a residential layout, courts have sometImes /èlt that deter,ninaiion of their value with • re/èrence to previous tatus or situation should he avoided and a uIforin rate of compensation should he awarded for all lands acquired undr the same notification." 25, Undisputedl, in thes 1e appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired iand of Village 131arthal 5 Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available an the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied • upon by the appellants is f Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious iistitutioh, i'c.., Rcidha Swami Salsang, Beas had purchased the agricultu-al land in Village Pochanpur at a Iricc which varied from Z52 la.cs to62 lacs per' acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Said, Dccds (Ex.PW-J/4 to Ex.PW-l/j 0) which are basically between one se; Ot co-owncrs and Radha Swami Satsan Beas in rcspet of the compat block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pophanpur reect the correct rriaiket value of the land in the villages in quction is the moot questionwhIch is required to be answered. Evidently, resa.id sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthil I.A.A p p. No. 254/2010 & confloctod Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 1:1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpj V sk (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. veaning thereby, the entire land of the sa].e exemplars - Sale Deeds (1x.PWl/4toEx.PW1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid. lands. Evidnce to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in Dre, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as ice for the acquired lands in question. The aser of these agricultural lands in Village s (Ex.PW.-.i/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has not been brought out as the purchser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by th1 appellants. Had the purcl.taser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited ITOIT1 him as to wly he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, I3eas who had pirchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exçrbitant price in Village Marnurpur vide Sale I)eed executed oii, 25111 l\4arch, 2000 was also subject iatter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Sing/i i's. Union of Thdia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Ral Siiw/i Union of 1ndh dc.dc1 C, -- - J ------...,

19.9.2011 and in the afor said decisions, the sale eernp1ar of Village Marnurpur was discarded vhile holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for he acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matte though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior tc their acquistion, but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands werb being used for agricultural purpose till their acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudeii.t person having knovledge of prevaThng I.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Ippeak of Village Bh [arthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Po4anpur question, is lacking. Thei disclosing representative special need of the pm Pochanpur vide Sale Dc market price of the land in cuestion 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 • (Lx.PW-I/4 to Ex.PW-l/lb) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court. So •far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-l/i 1) relied upon by the appellant is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,172A1 per acre rethting to Sale I)eed of 27111 January, 2000., it needs to he notedthatbecuse this sale exemplar (Lx.PW-1/1 1) .ws situated on the National I-ighway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-l/l 1) vendor had sold not only th'e land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, itting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price, in view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot he treated as a repijesentative price for the acquired lands in question. Left with no sale exeiplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinit, now it is required to be considered as to h.ether adoption of L& ii circular rates for the developed lands and .Prc-I)etcrrniPed Rates for the alternate plots by the DI).A ought to be adopted to determine the tue market value of the acquired lands in P question. •. Parameters governing fixatiort of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court ii its decision reported as P. Ram Redd and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development A utliority Hderabad and Os., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- /2. however, in eithr of the said cases whether it be the determination of the narket value oft/ic acquired land with hwidng potentiality ith re/erence to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well eveioped layout in the neighborhood .App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BharlhaI !A.App. No. 294/201.0,& connected Appeals of Village [3ijwasn r\.r,pp. No .1.1.1,2010 f connected Appeals of Village Pochapur /7/ or whethe it he the deermination b/the market value of the acquired land with biilding potentiality with reference to the price/etched by ae of building plots in an undeveloped • layout of building plts in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable far the Cort to find out what will be the price Jtched or to he fetchei by the sales ofp1ts in the layouts, relied upon by any o/t'ze parties, with reference to the price which the plots could 11zavefttched i/sold on the date of the publication of the prlimninary notifIcation under Section 4(1) o/the Act. FurlheF, where no evidence of price fttched by the sales of the plths in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be dofle is-to find out the market value of the acquired land witi reference to the relevant date of publication under Secton 4(1) of'ihe LA Act accor ing to the actual use to whic/ it was put and increase its valte by a small percentage l'1aving regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given salI not exceed 115th of the market value of the land fouid out according to its actual user - since resort to the m.thod of giving increased value for such building potenlic/ity arises only when there is no evidence of sales of b i/ding plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indiating that there was no immediate deman4 as such, far building plots even if fbr i-ned in the acquired land.

¶31In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the i)DA after acquiring the agricultural 1nds, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lal chwul (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-J)etcrmjiied Rates in detormining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freeh1d ians. Following the dictum of, Lal C/iand (.Sup.ra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jài Sing/i (Supra) and Sushi! Kuinar. (Supra) jhaS excluded, the f)DA rates qua the developed lands as being not lelevatil. ihr assessing the market value of A.ADp. No. 1i.9,/7008 & connected Appeals of V.Hlagp Ohartha LA.App. No. 794120:1.0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l..A.App. No ......1/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpL the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the D rates for allotment of developed land or the I)DA's Pre-I)etermine Rates for;a1ternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquird agricultural lands in question. Now what is requir-'d to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while takii1ig into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Barthal and other villages for development of i?warka Phase-I. It was ought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar,, . learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at the compoun(ed rate of iO% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of I)warka Phase-i and the instant • Notification for development of I)warka Phase-Il, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Colletor is more than the aforesaid escalated l:)rice • and therefore, the enhanement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase meth i d in asscsrnent of the market value of the 'acquired land' only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it rlats to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gapis olonly of a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard wlere the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notiications, i.e.. of I)warka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-Il is of sixteen years and therefore, it would he unsafe to adopt: the mode of determining the market' value by providing appropriate L4.App. No. I 19S/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhathal LA.App. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwsan LA.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur .. escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years Mr.Sanjay Podda learned. : senior counsel for the respondent/crossobjector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ i.2/o per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted. escalation I O% per ai3nun-i. Afir having perused the decision in Sushi! Kunuir (Supra), I find that 1 0% increase on account of higher potent.ality of the acquired land over and above the market value dctrrniiied by the Reference Court has' been granted and so, by relying upon Si-ishil Kuinar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court (,

1.2% per annum cannot ke reduced to lO% per annum. In this view of the matter; the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed Now what is to he seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agri ultural land in I)elhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the rñarket value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the 1ate of fixation of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Goernment \ve.f. jSt April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appa1s deserves lo be further increased or S not. Adoption of (ioverrnint's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned c6unscl for appella-its because the acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural 'land by Virtue of N'otiication of 24h October, 1994 declaring agricultural ian4s in these three villages in question to he urban. It is true that vide afresaid Nolification of the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed but that by itself' is nt sufficient to No. 13, 9 1 /20c & Connected Appeals of Vitage l3liathai .Jk.App. No. 21)4/201,0 connected Ippeails of Village Bijwsan LA.Ap. No .....1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l'ochnpur r [] presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed l•ands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any dceloprnent in and around the acquired lands - in question.. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, 4eas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agriu1tura1 purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, I 894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural. use I-lad there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their usc post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid thir hands On other sale instances in the area in question. I3ut, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village. Poc.hanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.P-1/[ 1) without Ieadin any evidence to establish that the quality and jhotentiaiity of the sale exemplars of l?adha Swami Sais ang, fleas in Vi1age Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samaikha (Ex.PW-1/lp) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of \'iilage Samalkha (Lx. •PW-l/i I.) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compnsation while. rcl)ung upon the afbrcsaicl sale instances. Therefore, in 1cw of the afbrc-referrecl dictum of the Apçx Court in Haryana Stae industrial bevelopnient Corporation (JISJDC) (S upra), uni. form rate of compensatiOn deserves to he awarded for the lands acquired undei lic saiñc Noti flca.tion in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Povernmcnt for the agricultural land in Dclhi. which generally factors in the i.se of price due to higher potentiality. 'faking note of tll'o fact that there is a gap between what App, No. 1 . 1.95/2008 & connected Appears ofViflge BhrthI . . .\.App. No. 294/201.0 & connected Appealc of ViUage Bijwson fA,Apo. No. 33 1120.10 & conflOCt,sd Appeais of Village Pochtinpur I . would he expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Governrnei t'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 Sushil Kurnar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this ourt in the 'aforesaid cases of Jul Singh (Sipra) and Sushi! Kunuir dSupra).

¶38This Court is of theonsidered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to yillage BharthaJ and Village Bijwasan. has rightly relied upon the Gok'ernment's minimum price for agricultural lands in I)elhi to fix the mrket 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 the acquired lands is sinilar to sale xemplars is borne out from the evidence On record. But I fiid that the aspect of higher pOtentiality ofthe acquired lands being in close vicinity of the 1(11 Airport Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots ad of Railway line passing through Village iThartha] and there being a l0() meteis vide road starting from N.11-8 from Shiv Mirti side to Dwrka Sub-City, Part 1 and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two pori vicinity of the acquired lan Reference Court. 'In the coi: aforesaid locational advanta' assume higher building poté What persuades this Court t value of the acquired land account of the higher buildi LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village 1 AApp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village I .AApp. No, I 11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village F ons, and there being Farm Ilouses in the has somehow missed the attention of the idered Opinion of this Court, on account of es, the acquired lands in question, certainly tiaiity being , in Vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. grant 10% increase over and above market as assesed by the Reference Court on g potentialit in the acquired lands is the n pur Page 270129 settled legal Position apt1 highlighted by the Apext Court in MiTZa Nausherwan Khan vs. cold or, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a concius ion is. reached that there was the possibility of the acuired land being used/or putting up buildings in the iinindjate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient o hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the incease in price attributable to such building poretia/it

¶39Consideriig the fat Ithat it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential 1 and in view of the fact that exactness can • never be achieved in the .natters of assessiig lir compenstjon, it is broad probabilities of the insam cases, which persuades mc to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices Rr the agricultural lTds for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat:the acquired lands dilferently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at ar with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village .Bijwasan. However; while relying upon the decision in Sushi! Kunwr (SLipra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the market value of the aëquired ~ands determined by the Reference Court in these matters on account i of the aforesaid locational . advantages providing a higher building p ten tiality in the acquired lands in question.,

¶40Accordingly, these apeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding I O% increase over nd above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthaj and Village •Bijwasan. While treating the apella.nts of Village Pochanpui at par with the appellants of Village Bhai1thal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of .A.App No....1.9/2pQ8 & connected Appeals of ViUge Bhartho (A.ipp. No. 291 11200 & conncctod APPedS of ViIlgci Bijwn (A "pp No.... 1/20.iC & connected Appejils of ViIg0 Pochanpur P a pe 23 of 2 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Ihus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined @ 16,50,000/- per ,bigh for the Categoiy 'A' land and 14,69,600/ per biha for the Category, 'B' ............ lands in question. 4 1 . On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, sl.awtorv benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the udg.nient. reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the Perid. where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for \vhic.h period of delay n interest on the enhanced compensation shall he paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above captioned appeals and c1oss-objections are disposed of in. the aforesaid terms wih directioi to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General oF this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. I)ecree sheets be accordingly prepared. - . (S[JNIL GAUR) Januar' 06, 2012 • JUDGE pkb LAAp.p. No, 1295/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal L.Ap.No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan iA.App No. 11.112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur IN THE HIGH COURT ØF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Man, Mr.Arnit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms. Smita Maan, Mr.R. S .Verrna, MrJitin Tewathia, lAdvocates Ms.Anita Ifornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohta, Advocate. MrRaghuiinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.gi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.R?ut, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondeit in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhapshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tórnar. Mr.B.D. harrna, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rbut, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjai Pathak, Mr.Mohitao Jadhav and Ms.Náv1i Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocate for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verrna, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Banky Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates .for DDA. / CORAM: FION'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNILGAUR ORDER

12.012012 C.M. Apple No0 752/2012 (For correctop. 'l'his is an applicatioi for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6th January, 2012. Counsel appearing foir the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 of the application. Advane copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The tYpographical erroi pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6thi January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'pr acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the kppeiiants. Accordingly, this aplicatjon is a[1owd and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragra1:h no: 40 of LAApp.No. 1 l5/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be c.airied Out fOrthwith. In view of the afoiesaid, this application stands disposed of. (SNIL GAUR) JUDGJ JANUARY 12, 2012 1"

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 1/; 20]] Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 ± LA.APP. 844/2008 RISHAL SINGH & ORS. Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita - Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate • Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.'M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. . Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Sarnit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOJ) versus UNION OF INDiA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate forDDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR