Rishal Singh & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orderssee LA.App.No.1195/2008,titledas 'RanbirSharmavs. Unionof India & Anr. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -f LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SI-IARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AinitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maaii, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mi-.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.R.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mi-.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. . Mi-.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. " • Respondents Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar,Seniory\dvocatewith Mr.SanjayPa:thalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain,' Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerhia,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth, Advocates for DDA. . COl^M: • • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % • • C.M. Appi. No. •752/2012 (For/corrcctlom). This is an application for,seeking typographical correction in Orderof6"Manuary,2012. Counsel appe£;ringfor the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/2008 • • • Page 1 \:.U. lilf" I W ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the atoresaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', wheieas it should be 'per acre', this is riot disputed by learned coLinsplappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'inparagraph no; 40 of LAApp.No: 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe caiiied outforthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,thirapplicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2 5UNIL GAUR .JUDGE '!• • IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT mM' DELHI Reserved on: November IS. 20JI Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 (GRID-A) ! • LA.y\P^^1195/2008(VILLAGE-BHA,RTHAL) : , RANBIRSHARJMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Toraar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Ciodara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate N4r.S.K.Routand l\4r.B.K,rioutray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, . Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh YadaV. Mr.DeepakKhosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates • Mr.H.S.Rauiela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate' Mr.Sandc;ep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Ranlela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) versus •UNIONOF INDIA& ANR. • \ • ....: Respo^idents 1hrough; Mr.SanjayPoddav,-SeniorAd^'oca^ewith iV(r.Saaiay Pathak,Mr.Mohitrao.Jadha\-and Ms.NaviinSw^in" Ms.K.KaumudiKiran.Advocatesfor L./\C/lJOI Mr.AJayVenr.a,Ms.BecnashawSoni. Mr.Mukcsh Kumar,Mr SJ<.Sethi,xVIr.Pav/anMathur, Mr..Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA •

1..'\..A?P.4L:,'2Q08& CM.No,4096/2008 ('Cross-Objections).f.A'.APP.-h2/''008' CM.No.5990/20K)'(Cross-Obiecliins)! •• *^'^'^®'-'^33/2009(Cross-Objectio.ns);LA.APP.701/20C8& C!\lNo.5i0,^009 (Cross-Oi:Mections): LA.APP768/2008; I.A.APP.770/2008; LA.App. i.iy:,/:;008&conncctRdAppealscifVillageBharihyl l.A.Arjp,No. m/?0i0S. r.oniieri.edApp(.-.ulsofVllla(>eBiiwa;.dn . " lA.App. connocKidAppealsofVlllafic:l-ochanaur • ' : Pafjc !. oi 29 . LA.APP.771/20b8 & CM.No.425/2009 (Gross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; ' LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & ^ CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; . LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.A1^9/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; Lyy(lT.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008;(LA^'.845/2008jJL?^CAPP;873/2008& CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); L7t.AI'P.892/200^r& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP,915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008;' LA.APP.974/20Q8 & CM'.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.AP,P.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP. 1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1031/2008 & CM?No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; ].,A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& ,CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP:1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,1050/2008; LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & ' CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections);.LA.APP. 1055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/20]1 (Cross,Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0bjection3); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM;No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/20()9 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No;3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.l111/2008; l.',A,APP.l112/2008& CM.No.383 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l] 13/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (C.-.ross-Objections);LA.APP.l115/20()8;.LA.APP.l116/2008; LA.APP.l121/2008; rA.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.l129/200.8 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objections); .f,A.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.1.131/2008 & CM,No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135./200S&, CMVNo.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l14C)/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008;LA.APP.l 157/2008;LA.APP.l 158/2008& CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.AP.P.1168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.1171/2008;LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.1]73/2008; LA.APP.l175/2008; LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.l179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933./2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.l185/2008; LA.APP.II86/2008&CM.No.7013/2009 I.^.App.No. n95/?.O08& connnctedAppeal.sofVillageBharthal • ; . l.A.App.No. Z.91/7.0.10£i corinGctedAppeaLsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App.No. :LTl/.2nlO&connocteclAppealsof Villaj?ePoch'anour'' ' ' ' Page2of 29 % p y (CrpssiObjcclions); LA.APP.1 190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP.1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 122372008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.N6.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA-.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 12,84/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & •CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objecti6ns) LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/20()9;. LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA. APR! 62/2009; LA.APIp;197/2009; LA.APi^.202/2009; (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.210/2009 &, CM.No.970/20] 1 LA.APiP.2]1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APp.224,/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & • (Cross-bbjections); LA.APP.241/2009;.LA.APP.245./2009; LA.APP.249/2009; I.A. APP.3 67/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA..APP.507/2009; LA.-APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APR'404/201.0; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; LAAPP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA. APP.512/2009; LA;APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; I,.A.APP.295/2009; LA.AP?.447.''2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP,509/2009: LA.APP.513/2009: LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 L A.APP.481/2009 LA.ARP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 l.A.APP.l 177/2008;LA.APP,1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 (Relating to NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued:under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 189.4 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,-Delhi)' . - (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08. 201J Pronounced on; January 06. 2012 LA.APiP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). DHVENDER KUMAR •...... Appellant Through: .Mr.R,S.'I'omar,Mr.VirendraSingh l/\.App.i\io 1195/Z008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharlhal IA.App. No. 294/2010&connectcdAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA;App No. Ul/Z010'& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K^Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (inR-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75,76) versus UOl &: ANR lA.API^ r.A.APP J-.A.APp, LA.A??,. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. [A./VPP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. f.A.APP: l.,A.APP. LA.APP'. LA.APP-; LA.APPi LA.APP] LA.APP.i LA.APP; LA.APPj . 52/2010 . 56/2010 . 100/2010 .242/2010 . 282/2010 .287/2010 . 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav:,and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC . Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and M^r.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals •• filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, '71 & 72 in appealfiled by UOI Mr.BankeyBihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221./2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288,/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351.'2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP, 28672010 LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No.964/2011,(Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP: 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 lA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP."359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 • LA.APR. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 ' LA.APP. 122/2010 LA.APP; 725,/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731,/2010 LA.APP.732,/2010 •LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP.828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & •oss-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo'. F.^0(30)96-L&• B,^A/I3417dated 13:12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. .2-8/2002t2003,•VillageBijwasan,Delhi) • • AND • . • \ l.A,App,,No. 119.'i/-20d8&conncctficiAppealsof VillageBharthnl . W.App, No, Zgi/xOlO&icontiectGdAppealsofVillageBijwasan '..A.App,No, •).ia/2()lQ&^connecKidAppealsofVillagePochanpur . Page 4 of Z9 % :k. (GRID-C) V Resen>ed on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 ].A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR)' SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharnja,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 U^^10N OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanJayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith MrSanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,andMs.NavlinSwain,Advocates for.UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA.. LA. AFP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP l.A.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP l^A.APP, LA.APP. LA.AP]>. 111/2010 160/2010 i228/2010 '254./2010 •292/2010 •307/2010 .:3 95/2010 .i42Q/20IO .;466/2010 . 63 7/20,] 0 660/2010 .767/2010 . 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 •523/2011 536/2011' 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010-293/2010' 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010; 1052/2010 116/201 l-v. 121/2011 485/2011 525/201] . 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. LA.APP. • .LA.APP, LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA./VPP. ' LA.APP: L.A.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

5.26/20] ]• 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./20I1 522,/2011 535/2011 lAApp. No, H95/2008&conneclodAppealsofVillafieBharthal AApp. No, 294/2010&connectfidAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.APP No I.I.I/20IO&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur, (Relating, to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417, dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,A^illagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R PER •,

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learnedcounsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining'to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/lA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4of the^Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, peitainnig to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,-Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellajitsherein in the aforesaid th)-ee villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003;-Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation ?13.82 lacs per acre for l^lock 'A' (level field -- with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withoutop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarlcetvalueoftheiracquired l-A.App. IMo, n!)!i/2008&connoictedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal -fApp. No. ;'.9<i/?,o.lo&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ...i.App.IMo. ni/?,0.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 6 rif 29 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ?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 compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Kamataka Hoi^singBoard vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag ami , Ors., (2011) 2 see 246;Anjani Molu Dessai ra. State ofGoa and Ann,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors,, (2010)3 SCC 661; RanvirSingh I and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira

(D) through LRs ra. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Naitd (since deceased)through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana & Ors., 20] 0(9) SCALE 41; Chakas-vs. State of Punjab Ors., 2011 (9) SCALh 362; Avinash DhavdjiNaik vs. State of Maharashtra,(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) tMrough LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003'titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha'& .-Ors, decided on 26.03'.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCe!714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors ys. ExecutiveEngineer, lA.App.I\i0. .U!?;j/2008'ficonnpctGdAppealsofVillage.Sharthai !.A.App.No. 7.94/?.010&• connectcdAppealsofVlllagRBijwasan •A.App, Mo 111/20.10&connnctodAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • PapG7of29 Gujarat and Anr,, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 115',RisalSingh & Ors, Vs. Union\ofIndia^ Anr,, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union ofIndia and Am., (2009) 15 SCC .769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and ' Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyamma!and Anr w. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattdtray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(201I) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. :-Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal &. Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SnshilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuieRam vs. UnionofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be fn-st understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developraentin the area overaperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near lliturealone.

¶7• Ii:was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Joclhpm-broad gage railway line ofVillage Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal.dividingit into two parts. I.e.. on the easternsideofthe railwaylineis the IGI Airport,New Delhi uVApp. No 1135/2003&conncctedApp^^ IA.App, No. 2Jt/2010&connGctodAppealsof VillageBIjwasan ••A.App. No, 11.1/20.10a connectedAppealsof VillaRePochanpiK Page 8 of 7.9 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the •agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out l^y Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel 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 establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentofDwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside of VillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Pliase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the ales sizraslm?.\Dto highlightthat the boundary or Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

¶3It 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 agricultura!' to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24"''^October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned -counsplfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. 1A./\pp. No. 1195/;^008&conriGcfsdAppealsof VillageBharthal !.A App,.Mo. 291/2010& conncctcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan . LA;,y\pp.igo, ].11/;;0.1.0&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur ^3: ReddiA Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ore, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin VdhoDass ra. StateofEaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential'of the'acquiredland must be adjudged keepingin view the developmentin the area overaperiodoftime and tiie same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe auflroritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot there is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by tvIr.B.D.Sharma,leai-nedcounsel for the appeliahtsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplarscannot be ; thrownioul as has been illegallydone J,y tl,e ReferenceCourt, because Uiere is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued becauseof any special advmnagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjamMoluDessaivs. Stateofdm '•ml Am-., (2010) 13 see 710. the averageofsaleexemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the land w-hich eonies to ?57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale'exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrales/circlerates tor defenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroheous.

¶11Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquiredland was sought bv Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basisofthe I& " DO rates fixed by tl,e Government and also on the basis of pre- •determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate plotsmthe year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquiredland, determinationof its market value is . fP ccnnmetlAppealsofVillaR,pochanpur , • ' sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village^amalkhaor alternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO ratesofthe developed lands in Dwarlca Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In; the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited , of LA. ^pp. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds:- • , - i • - . - • ; <^>^1 "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part-of the i • '. respondent about the AM>ard No.26/2002-2003dated ••

23.J0.2002 being flawed in the course of the .proceedings Civil Writ petiiion No.19012 of 2006. . i(Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated j . ' \7.7:2007) ; ' b);Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice \dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates,of land in , •. ;the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification ' , " • ^^'nder Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was ; . :issued. c) .Valuing the land on, the basis of the letter dated \11-9.2001issuedby the GovermnentofNationalCapital I TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laid : down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more \recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in • • 'SangunthalaversusTahsildar.2010(31SCC661. ' f • ^ ' d) :Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per - establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining I fhe valueofthe landunder.acquisition. ; e) Does not deal with disparityin yalue 'ofthe Sale Deeds \. producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law . est.a.bUsh.edby the Hon'ble^Supreme Court in the recent . case of Chinda Fakirci Patil versus Special Land \ . AcqiMsition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The ' {ion'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale • peedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin .lAApp.No. .1195/2008&cdnnectedAppealsof VillageUharthal • LA.App. No. 2.94/2010&connectndAppealsofVillageBijwasan ;I.A.App.Mo. .111/2010&cQrinecledAppealsof VillagePochanour ; case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana jMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa, ,2010(13) SCC 710, the •Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the \exemplars and not by averaging of different types of \sales transactions should be considered while ;adjudicating upon compensation upon a. certdn land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC ' No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject ; land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lacper acre in Block A and XI3,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court . including in Subh Ram v,s. State of Haryana'2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rej'used to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 jramed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide- 'Notificationof the MunicipalCorporationof Delhi, the ' land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was Ichanged,and these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries of.Delhi State. \The masterplan and Notifications of Governmentfor Iland use change show that in. future land, can be ;subjected , to residential commercial and other \permissibleuses. It is also pertinentto mention that the Iappellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"' amendment [of the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, bv Ivirtue of which the Municipal Corporation. Act was ;amended and the area where the land is situated, was • Ideemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor fwas electedfi^om. there.. No Panch.ay.atelections were •held in the a.rea.. h) 'Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR. Supreme ,Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anf vs. Union ofIndia ^andfefusedto considerthefact that the developmentin [the area has a direct efject on the price thai a willing purchaser wovddpayfor. thesubject land.

i) 'Ignored the fact that Respondent No. .2 had also I.A.App,No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A-App, No, ZM/^.OIO&connectedAppealsof VillageBiiwa.san ' LA.App. Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur> auctioned similarly sitiiated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. ])• The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 \ for similarly situated land. k). Does not take into accountthe possibilityofchangeof the use ofthe land although the land, was acquiredfor Idevelopment purposes of D)vqrka Phase^ II. It is , reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be Iagricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) •IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 \^ihhough they clearly establish the commercial :potentialityofthe saidland In Sa.nguntha.lav, Tahsildar ' (I-^), (2010) 3see 661 It was heldthat thepurposefor, •^which land is acquired is•a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact iwhetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future •needs to be considered. m.)\ The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied bv the .buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands •were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportionojthe landis beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof •being putin betteruseas housesitesin the nearfuture." '

¶13In :ihe brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the factual detailshave been providedwith aprayerthat the • appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof ' LA.App. I l./\.App. ; l.A.App, IMo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal No. 294/2010&connGcledAppealsofVillageBijwasan No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshBattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 S.C 2238;,KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr", 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-Dctermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ot the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquired lands is sought'in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Ioddai, learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is ati admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence loi determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connectedwith the land in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand other fectors namely,nature^ situationofthe piopeity,pioximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the 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 Anr..,

(2009).15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in piice,in ashortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explainedby producingin evidence the seller LA./\,App No. liaVZOOSSt connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal J.A,App,No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Villa/;eBijwasan l.A,App.No, 111/?.0j.0&:connectedAppeal.';of VillaRePochanpur ' ' . ' • •• . ' • 0\ and the purchaseras no prudentperson havmg knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin 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- ^ DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court mLai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis Courtin SmhUKumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerncd,it was urged by iMr.SanjayPoddar, learned senior counsel for tlie Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Govenmentas on I Apiil, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value'of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (mpm) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted -, thatthere is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletalcinginto 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-objectionstothe aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the Mdes and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,tlie evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparablelandis thepricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling - I.A..App.No. 1195/2008&connnctRdAppealsofVillapeBharthgl ' • » nS I , • &connectedAppealsOf VillagePochanpur ' Page 15 of M 3%^ seller and the best' evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealingwith the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass ra. State of Hmyana & Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or . the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kindof importanceor because of its explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandfar puttingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(iii) possibilityofobtainingyvaterand electricsupplyfor occupants ofbuildingsto beput up on thai land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsorthe likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin thevicinityor 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 occupiersof buildings,if builton the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquired,landor the acQuiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶181he potentialityofland for the puiposc.ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. I<or the said purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. No. .1.195/?.008&connectedAppealsof VillageBhartlial l.A,App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwa.can , LA.App.No. .1..1.1/20.10&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpu § which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court • in Atma^Singh (supra)that the.exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by'theappellantscouldnot be a ground to discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

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

¶714Ihe legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behall of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference eithei in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are sirailailysituated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no'justificationfor reducing the , ~ compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land. 20, It is a well establishedproposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally tiue that the burden ol proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Strpra)can be referredto Vvilh advantage. -1. Apex Court in Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofrhe 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) deserveattention,which are as under:- JA.App. No. 11S5/200S&connoctedAppealsof VillageBharlhal lA.App. No, 2M/2010&connected-Appealsof VillagnBijwasan fA.App. .Mo. TTl/201.0&connGctGdAppealsof VillagePochanpur 'm "The legal position is that even M'here there are several exemplars - with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where hoM'ever 'there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average' thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two' sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar Idnds or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation \ or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to.. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determinationof fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as . follows:- "It is well settled that genuine •and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona.fide sale transactionsproximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired, lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the Mnlling vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed betM'een reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal m.arket conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principlesto determinethe market value of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd. fOTVGQ (Supra), are as under;- • "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof development in the vicinity, increase in prices', would be slow, steady and gi--ad:ual,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps: lA.App. No. 1195/2008& conncctedAppealsofVillage Bharllial • i.A.App.No. 234/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwa.ran LA.App. No. in/2010a connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur On the other hand, in urban Or semi-urban areas, where the •development isfaster, where the demandfor land is high land yvhere there is construction activity all around, the 'escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for-land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a nominal rate of 1% or 2% • , . 'per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in marker value of lands in the rural 'areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in .urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%> per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only aroundhalfof it, that is about5% to 7.5%)per annum. This rule of thimib refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceof clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase; or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in 'prices, then the increaseto 'be appliedwoulddependupon the same. I. _ - V - Normally,,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe marketvalue by providingappropriateescalationover the proved,market value oj nearby lands in previousyears (as ' evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactions or Requisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the .relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition ; . . by only afew years, that is uptofour tofive year's. Beyond that it.may be unsafe, even ifit relates to a/neighbouring . -• . may be a re,liablestandardif the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard . where the gap is larger. For example,.for determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference tcj a sale or I.,^.App.No. i.l9:;/2Q0f?|^connfictfidAppealsofVillageBhartha! . • •'.V^.Apo. No. 29/1/2010&connnctedAppealsofVillageBilwasan ' ' • LA.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppeals6f VillagePocrianp.ir acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increase may itselfundergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurtsinprices affectingthe verystandard of increase. "

¶24This Court-is mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Hmymta State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods:What was said.bythe Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different siiuationQladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshould be avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor-alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired,,land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitaiysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e'.,RadhaSyuamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre. .26. WhetheraforesaidSale P^eeds (r:x.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)Avhich are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas mrespectof the compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof the landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis requii-ed to. be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds •A.App No. 119^2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ..A.App.No. .;!,'V20.10&. connuctcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 1.11/2030&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur m (bx.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)did not cojnmand the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situsitionof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in .Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-lMto Ex.PW-1/10)has not been biought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been go.l examined by the appellants.Had the purcLiaser/vendeeofthe aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited Irom him as to why he had agreed to pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25"' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin I.A. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011'and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamuipurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated as icpiesentativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands,were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not' developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing l-A.App.No. Ii9b/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal U.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. ivjo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 (lix.PW-1/4 to Bx.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied 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-I/ll) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (P.x.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefbre, 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, noAV it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DcterminedRates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. RamReddy and Ors. R Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabad and Ors., ]995 (2) SCC 305 are as under;- "/2. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlandwith . buildingpotentialityMn.th referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood I, IA,App. No. 1195/2008& connertfidAppnalsofVillage Bharthal l.'^.App.No. ZSA/.^OIO& connoctedAppealsofVillage Briwasan IA.App. No. 111/MlO&connectGdAppealsofVillagePochanpiir of 29 3^. I'm 07' M'hetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land, with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,', with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe . publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section ofthe Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available,• then what could be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of, its buildingpotentialityascertained,on the basisofevidenceto be^ made available in that regard. A small percentage increase,to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only yvhen there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicatingthat there was no immediate demand., as such, for buildingplots even if formed in the acquired land. " j1. In view of the difficultiesin adoptionot rate of land ciiarged by the DDA'afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supia),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining'the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand (Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No. 1191,/?_008&conncctndAppealsof VillaeoBharthal lAApp. No, 79/\l?.oiQ&connccfndAppealsof VillageBljwasan LA.App, No. 11.1/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillaBePochanpur

1.^ the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, 1 find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueof the acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-L It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris morethan the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ot only ota few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap between the two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. Nt). ll!»/2008 & connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No, 294/2010&conncclcdAppealsof Village Bljwasan l-A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the ; , respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwaiTanted as a cooidinatcbcnch of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in , SushiiKumar (Supra), 1find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum.In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice ofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalation.of12%o 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 deserves to be further increasedor not. j6. Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland - pertaimng to the Notification in question has been 'assailed by tlie learned counsel for appellantsbccause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agricultural'lands in these three villages mquestion to be urban. It is truethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ol the acquiredland had changedbut that by itself"is not sufficientto IA.App. No. ]l.g,V2d08&connfictcdAppcnlsofVillageBliartlijil l-A.App.No. ^94/2010&, connGclndAppealsofVillageBliwa.san-l-A.App.No. ]1.1,7.010&connectcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur presume tliat the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundtlie acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplai'sof Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofl:he said lemdswas for agricultui'alpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of tlie Land AcquisitionAct, i894, tlie acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein pricedue to higlierdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use-post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land . in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitrtionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplar's Radha Swami Satsang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewiththe acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samall<ha (Ex. PW-l/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient giound to giant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale mstopcos. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum ofthe Apex Court mHaryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (USIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same NotiJlcationin the light of the mmimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher . potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what i^.App.No. x.a/20.10&connectGdAppealsofVillagePochanpLi, would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra)andI fmd no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly• relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question. Inndingof the ReferenceCourtinmattei:ofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of Ihc acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,Indian Oil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 Irom Shiv Iviurtiside to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part 11, dividingthe acquired.lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity ol: the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopini-onof this Court, on accountof atoresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredkinds in question,certainly assumehigher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof DwarkaPhase-I. What persuades this Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the lA.App. Nci. .119L/2Q08& connGCtedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connccledAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. :,ll/2010&connectedAppnslsof VillagePochanpur Papo27of29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Uirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is-reachedthat there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conciusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a bui ding potentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable tosuch buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideiingthe fact that it would be veiy difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem equivalenceby uniformly applying tlie Government'sminimum - pnces for tlio agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no special featuresto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof Village.Pochanpurare treatedat par with their counter,parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthai and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in SuMl Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourt:in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotenlialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to, the extern of awardingI()»/" increaseoverand abovethe marketvalue assessedby the RsfereneeCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthaiand Village Buwasan;Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaiand VillageBijwasan,the appealsof A.App. No. .l.U/20.10&connt!ctcdAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands of these three villagesin questionis determined@ 6,50,000/-per>^Sorthe' Category y\ land and @?14,69,600/-per bi^ha for the Category'B' lands in question. 41-On the aforesaid enhancement in the .compensationawarded, staiutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi \\'hichperiodof delayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in tlie afoi-esaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar Ccncral ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. • • January 06, 2012 pkb lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connccledAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 291/2010&connccledAppealsof VillageBijwasan' ,lA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppesLsofVillagePochanpur .j-jnv f:.,<•- '/''I fn/. /'o'Y'r Pago 29 of 29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ' : Reserved on: November , 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 845/2008 RISHAL SINGH & ORS. Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,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 C y Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhoslaand Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, 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 UOI) 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.Mulcesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR V, '