Pratap Singh & Ors v. U.O.I & Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Am. GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb JO % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Air NEW DELHI Reserved on: November Pronounced on;Januarv (GRID-A) LA.APP.l195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBJR SHARA4A Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash,M Maan, Mr.R.S.yerma,Mr.JitinTewathia,Advoca Mr.AnandYadav and Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocate Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghiivinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S'.K.Rouland Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamA Advocates. Mr.PankaJ Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav.Mr.l3eepakKhosla,Mr.Samit and Mr.j^JhajianjayMehlaAvat,Advocates Mr-.H.S.Rauiela, Advocate Mr.f.S.)3ahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.li.S.Ranlela,(y\dvocatesfor respondentin appiialsfiled by UOI) versus UNION ()]MNDIA& ANR.' Respojidents Ihrough: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdA'ocatewith Mr.Saqja) Pathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand xMs.NaviinSwain' Ms.K.KatimiidiKiran.Advocatesfo.rLAC/UOl Mr.AJayVerma,Ms.BecnashawSorii. Mr.Muke.sh Kumar,Mr S,K.Sethi,Mi-.Pav,/anMathiir,IVlr.Kuna Sharma, Advocaie for DDA • (Cross-Objections),f.A.APP..45j/ ..-v.A.F-.45o./20()8;-LA.APP.d88/2008.-fe CM.No.5990/20J0(Cross-01 (Cross-Objections); T.A.APP701/'>0 510/2009 (Cross-Objection;;); APi>.768/200R; l.A.APP'rr/i I'-App. &conneclGdAppR;ilsof ViilaRn Bhar!h;i| Ia.Adp. No. /9WmOS ajrincctcdApp(...-.,lsof Villago Biiw;is.in A.App. IV,.,. &commr-dAppealsof ViilaRoI'-ocr^anour Pago iS. 2011 0(i ixin vSrnita :es nsarr. hosla '2008; ions); G'8 & ./2008; oi 23 (Cross-Objections); i..A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; .A.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008 8/2008 3/2008 1/2008 itions) 3/2009 LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.116 LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.li72/2008; LA.APP.117 LA.APP.1]75/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008;'LA.APP.117.9/2008;LA.APP.118 LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933./2009(Cross-Obje l.A.APP-.l184/2008; LA.APP.l 185./2008; LA.APP.1186/2008& CM.No.70 l.A.App. No. :i 195/2008& contiGcledAppeal.sof VillageBharthal l.A App. No. Z91/20.1.0& corinectedAppealsofVillageBijvva.san LA.App. No, & connecleclAppeal.sofVillagePochaiiour' Page LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.7712/2008; LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/Z008& 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 (Q-oss-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.9:i1/2009 (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 LA.APP.818/2008;' LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 rCross-Obiections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objer iTXaPR899/20^^ LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/:i /2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.97: .A.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.97: LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & . CM.No.5'72/2009 (Cross-Objectious);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objc( I.A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.104 l.,A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP. 1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Obje ( LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.105( LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.105; & 3/2008; 5/2008; ctions); 6/2008; ctions); 0/2008; 2/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008& CM.No.416/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/b008& 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.xNo.l5S7/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(cross~0bjections); 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); .A.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 10;?6,/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1087/2008& CM.No.6 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093./2008; A.y\PP.1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA:APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No:3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/?,008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 ((.-.ross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; LA.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008t;Cross-Objections);LA..APP.1140/2008; ZOI29 (0[ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008;LA.APP.119 LA.APP.] 193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP.119 LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 120 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.121 LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP.1225 CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241 CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.125 LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 12 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.12 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.3 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.5 LA.APR73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.7 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Obje LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.i3 LA.APP. 137/2009 LA.APP. 143/2009 LA.APP. 187/2009 LA.APP. 198/2009 LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011

1.A.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP,220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP,227/2009; LA.A.PP.230/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245,/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2()09; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP, 13/2011; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP; 197/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA: APP.l 99/2009; LA.APP. b LA.APP. 14 LA.APP. 19 LA.APP-.20 CM.No.70: (Cross-Obje LA.APP. CM.No.72C LA.APP.24 .LA.APP.30 LA.APP.45 LA.APP.48 LA.APP. LA.APP,50 LA.APP.5] LA.APP.56 LA.APP.4 LA. APP.l 17 2/2008 7/2008 0/2008 I./2008 2O08& '2008& 2/2008 7p/2008 8k/2008 9/2009 9/2009 ^/2009 ctions) 5/2009 9/2009 5,/2009 /2009 l,/2009 7/2009 :tions); 5/2009; 6/2009 i'2009 5/2009 5/2009 /2009 /2009 .'2009 3/2009 7/2009 3/2010 S/2008 LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.APP.367/2009; 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.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.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; .A.APP. 1138/2008; 49 5 % 1,A.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.1 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Awa 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 01 Pronounced on: January 06 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN).• IDBVENDERKUIMAR .. .....Appellant I hrough: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh

2.2000 d No. 2011 2012 lA.App. i\io .1195/^08 & coiinectcdAppealsofVillage Bharthal i-A.App, No. 294/2010& coniiGCtedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA,App No. l.ll/ZOiO& connectedAppeal.sofVillage Pochanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout anc Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appe (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, versus UOl & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate Avith Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOI. Mr.VirendraSingh, Advocate in R-68|,71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advoc|a,tes for DDA. LA. AFP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 I.A.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288,/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA-APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351,/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010' LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP.'742/2010-LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP, 286/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP.75/2010& C.M.No.964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP; 352/2010 • LA.APP. LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP, 407/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP, LA.APP, 725/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 731./2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. .LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & •oss-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 Award No .28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) ' • AND 11ant 5, 76) 1/2010

5.'2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 45/2010 49/2010 53/2010 58/2010 59/2010 53/2010 ;)8/2010 Z2,/2010 ?.6;'2010 752/2010 828/2010 lA.App. No, ngs/aoos & conncctedAppnal,?ofVillageBharthal l-A.App. No. Zq/i/ZOlD& conmictedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. IMO. 11j/.2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur . Page 4 of;.9 I •% (GRID-C) Reserved on: December It 2011 Pronounced on: January 06 A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHA.T RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(' R-16,20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33,36 to to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appella| LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appel in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate w Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitra Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocf for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocc for DDA, LA. AFP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ].A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. J.A.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' . 154/2010 . 165/2010 . 248/2010 .260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485720II 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. No, l].95/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.APP. No, 2.94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App No ]11/2010&connecleclAppealsof VillasePochanpur. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. • LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 155/2010 . 209/2010 . 249/2010 .261/2010 . 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 : 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. Page 5 0 i, 2012 ,in .t in ant ith :> tes ,tes 56/2010 15/2010 $50/2010 :70/2010 06/2010 93/2010 412/2010 34/2010 35/2010 . 57/2010 58/2010 918/2010 6^/2011 9/2011

29./2011 22/2011 35/201 1 (Relating to Notification No. F.l()(30)96-L& B/LA/13417

13.12.2000issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1 AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur, dated ^94 & hi) Ddl % HON'BLE MR" JUSTICE SUNIL €;AUR

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identiccil, thcieioie with the consentoflearned counsel for the partiespresint at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to hloUflcciUonNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,re to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan Pochanpurare beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

2., Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification oj December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact comprisingofthirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in que, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid ating and' 13"' 894, )lock ition, :hree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., y\ward No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andA . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@ ^13.82 lacs per acre l^lock A (level field —with top soil) aind @^12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acqi A'ard for ired 'LA.App. No. 119!;/2008& connecledAppeals.ofVillageBharthal. lAApp. No. 29'i/20.10& conncctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan lAApp. No. 113./201.0& connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur ."age G 0 IV agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourtvide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@ ?15.00 lacs per acre foT the appellants'acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per ac;re for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; wljereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon ineer, the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Kamataka Housing Board Land Acquisition Officer, Gada Ors,, (2011) 2 see 246; AnjaniMolu Dessai ra. State ofGoa

(2010) 13 sec 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana am

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Bead) through LRs. Fs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors,, (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir and Anr, Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha FaUn

(I)) through LRs vs. The SpecialiMud AcquisitionOfficer, Jdl.gaoi't, 2011(2)SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) Dr|j 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State ofJIaryana 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, 11 see 171; Atnta Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. S\ate of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 ti Smt. Indu Khorana ra. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03 Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, g and Singh Patil Anr., Ors., led as .2010; C2011) 7 S(X] 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, LA.App. No. .1.15.')/?.008& conruicled Appeals of Villags Bhatlhai l.A.App. No. 7.94/2010 &• conn(!Ct(!clAppeaLsof VillageBijwa.san lA.App. No l,n/2010 S connoctod Appeals of VillagePochanpur Pag. 7 of 29 Gujarat and Am., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana. State M DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175; Misa!Singh& i UnionofIndia& Ann, 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. ofIndia and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr ra. SpecialTeh (Land Acquisition) and Anr,, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandi Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; 1 Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Fs. Union ofIndia & 176(20.1]) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSin^ Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008 Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar ra. Union ofIndia, decidc;(:

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Unii India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. UnionofIndia,

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very out; was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned arguing counsel for the appe that the locationand situationot the acquiredagriculturalland has Lrst understood in order to appreciate its potential which mu; adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over aperic time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellants Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijw passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two p I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New E 'histrial lv\.App.No. 1195/2003&connecledAppealsof VillageBhartha! IA.App. No. .291/20.10&conncctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 8 0 FS. 'Jnion and sildar m Wo ihesh 2238; h Fs. Om 627; APP. i on of ;:oio et, it lants 0 be t be d of that asan a.r{s, elhi :'.9 l,A./\pp I.A"App 1-4.App 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 developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samallcha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extersion ol IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpur^vere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras ^vere also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslm?cpto highlightthat the bounJary ot Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spitd 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 entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24^' October,199

¶9It was argued with much veHeraefice by Mr.S.K.Rout,lear counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave 1: Vv'rongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. No. 119.S/2008& connoctndAppoalsofVillageBharthal ..Mo. 294/2010& connnclcdAppealsofVillageBijwasan . . Mo. .1.11/2010&conneclodAppeaLsofVillagn Pochanpur Pagn 9 of

¶4ned een ReddiA Ors. vs. LandAcqmsitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in it decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)S 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adj keepmg mview the developmentin the area over aperiodof tin the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if aft acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wou meanthatthereis no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Shamia,learned counsel appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePoehanpurto hig that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lac merely because of Uie said variation, these sale exemplarseanii thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, be there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplarsare overv bccause of any special advantagesand as per settled legal propos laid down by the Apex Court in AnjamMoluDessai vs. Slateof andAn,.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsought taken as representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appel are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circlerates for detemiininf, marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous. '1. Assessmernof market value of the acqun-ed land was sough IV!r.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basisof the oo rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of | determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alter, plots .n the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situation, poicntiahtyof the acquired land, determinationof its market value W.App. NO, n95/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal c. n:/.xiO&connectedAppealsof VillagePoehanpur .Page 10 of :i995) s later ::ale udged e and Jr the Id not r the ilight and 3t be cause iulued ition Goa •0 be •r57 ants the the by L& pre-ate ^.nd is sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates o developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLin of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugned judgmentor following grounds:- a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the yiward No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.J0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-exanunationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) h) 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 under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar.2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining' the valueofthe landunder.acquisition. e) Does not d:eal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda hakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475'of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin LA.App. No, .119:;/2008&connGctttdAppealsof VillageDharlhal LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectndAppealsof VillageHijwasan LA.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppeal.sof VillagePochanpur and "the Pre-ited the case the averagesaleprice is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai v^. 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 adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certan 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 mnterial which indicate that the market-value of the land-is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court including in Subh Ram v.?. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. 4^' a consequence, the impugned judgment •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land, use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal wa.s changed and. these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Govermnent for land, use, change show that in. future land, can be subjected, to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 7f^amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.j". 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land, is situated, was deemed a municipal area a.nd the municipal Counsellor yms elected from, there. No Panchayat elections were held in. the area. . h) Refused to apply the la.w laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of India and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wotild pay for^ the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent '.No. ,2 ' had also I.A.App, No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeal.';of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/?.010& cbnnucledAppealsofVillage Biiwa.san LA.App. No. .1.11/2010& connected Appealsof Village Pochanpur Page 12 c r f 29 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of ly^varka Phase

¶11It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated ] 6.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held, that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a_ relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhasgot 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 by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portion oj the land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and otliers of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsofthis appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsofl the otherappealsinthesebunchofappeals,

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfoftthe appellants,itwas urged by Mr.AnaridYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof I.A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof Villagepochanpur • Pa e13 f 29 urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the ch4nge in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thlrihkar w of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs, Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and thiit Pre-13etermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are rele^'ant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquiredk sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled bythe Respondents,Mr. ^ Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section5 Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant'ev: for determination of the market value unless and until the sa properly connected with the land in question and element of s fancy of the purchaserand other fectors namely,nature, situation property,proximityto the village etc. are also requiredto be cons and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by th ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin i Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Uni India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand-w. Union of India a.

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SusMl Kumar Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp inOreasc in price in a shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasois for such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the beller nds is anjay -A, of is an dence me is pecial of the on LA.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppeal,';ofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No, ll,l/?.010& connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur Pagtillof 29 9^ and the purchaseras no prudentperson having laiowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as refle:tedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contenc •behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rate DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decis Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed cooidinateBenchofthis Courtin SmhilKumar(supra)andRaj (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urg Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/ objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixir minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon.@12°/ annum, market value of the acquired lands has been errone determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (s appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is subn thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacq lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impu judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementb> ReferenceCourtwhiletakmginto considerationthe appreciation(?4 per annum and the same deserves lo be brought in line while grai appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the ci objectionsto the aforesaidextent. '

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidence recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketv ofthe comparableland is thepricepaid by willingpurchaserto awil 3y the ed on s/Pre-on of by a d by :ross~ g the 0 per :)usly jpra) [.A-App. No. 119;,/,?008&conncctRdAppealsof VillageBharthal AA f ^ connectGdAppealsofViiiagoBIjwasan • .App. IMo. 11,1/^.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 15 0 mg seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haiya^a & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationof the acquired land vis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation; (a.) the suitabilityof the acquiredlandfor puttingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(lii) possibility^ofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants ofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredland,for buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which m.ay become availableto the occupiers.ofbuildings,if builton the acquired land; and (vii.) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to specif? afew. "

¶181he potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas alsc buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. For the , puipose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose lA.App. No. 1195/7.008& conneclpdAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. ?.94/2010& conncctedAppealsofVillage13ijwasan LA.App. No. .1,11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 16 for said for f29 which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiteratingthe relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of small pieces of land rc;iied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs, MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 ^ICC

¶714The l(3gal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied i on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic differ^ either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which similarly situated having similar advantage available to them eve regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedl^.nds and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burdei provhig the true market value of the acquired land is on the State has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensa awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of Apex Court in Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage,

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammai(Supra),while takingnote of the that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residei 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 (Su deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App, No. 11.95/2008& conricctedAppnalsofVillageBHarlhal IA.App. No. 294/2010& conneclHdAppealsofViKagn Bijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010& connfidcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur pon ;nce are as the 1 of who it is tion the rLial :)ra) Page 17 c f 29 y> "The legal position is that: even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars,which is a bonafide transaction, mhU be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilarlandswhosepricesrange in a n.arrowbandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the m.arketprice. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are with referenceto dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to.. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observat pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands n by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakim Patil (Supra), which ar follows:- '7/ is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired, lands possessing similar value or utility taken place betAveen a. willing vendee and. the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lane reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under;- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and grad.ua.l,withoutany sudden spurts orjvmips: l.A.App. No. 1195/2008 &( contacted Appfialsof VillageBharlhal ' . • i.A.App. No.294/2010 & connncted Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App.No. 1]1/20.1,0S( connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 18 ions ade J as s as f29 On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In 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 development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1%) or 2%) per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15%) per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5%o to 7.5%)per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to he applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determiningthe market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved,market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidencedby sale transactions or acquisition),where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the_ relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour to-fiveyears. Beyond thai it .may be unsafe, even if it relates to a, neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe m.arket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or I.A.App. No. I19:i/200f? connccledAppaaisofVillagc!Bhartha! ' lA-Apo, No. 294/2010& connficledAppealsofVillageEijwasan . ' • 1-A.App No. .l.U/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePocfianp'jr ' pg j9 of 29 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrence of varyingperiods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts inprices affecting the very standard of increase. "

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictum ofthe Apex CourtinHar StaleIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),rega computation of compensation for the acquired lands by ado comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex CourtinHS (Supra) is as under:- ''Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference toprevious status or situationshould be avoided ' and a uniform,rate of compensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredimderthe same notification." ^5. IJndisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and arc'und acquited land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the perioi in questionaie not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the eippellants is of Village Pochanpur. i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSymmiSatsang,Beas had puichased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ^52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/IO)wllich are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatscng Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue;of the landin the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale De •fcA.^pp.No. 1.1.95/2008&connisctndAppealsof VillageBharthal l-'A.App. No. 2.94/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan W.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' Page 20 of •ding Dting IDC :ds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from ^52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars - Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired Imd in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treited as disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special•need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcl.iaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom, him as to why he had .agreedto pay such a high pr: these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha . Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25 March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008ti Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decid

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof\ Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be t as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evi that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetil acquisition. Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands wei developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prev l-A.App, No, 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillagsBharthal ' • l7\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagKPochanpur o Page 2 ce for Swami at an -Ih ;led as App. 3d on illage ."eated lands dence their, c not ailing 1 of 29 marketprice ofthe land in questionwould pay such a high price unless and until such purchaseis meantfor specialconsiderationand so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds (I'x.PW-lM to lix.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 appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantpri(!:eof ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,20()(), it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-l/H) was situated on the National liighway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (lix.PW-l/l 1) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure theireon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., there|f3re, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lanes in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered ?3,s to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lancjs in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired hnds highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreported as P, Ram Reddy and Ors. K Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban 'DevelopMeni Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. tjowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the marketvalue of the acquired land with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood IA.App. No. .119:;/Z008& connected Appealsof Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/.''.010& conncctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App. No. .1.1.1/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpiir or whether it he the determination ofthe market value ofthe acquired land with building potentiality with reference to theprice fetched bysale of buildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price •fetched, or to be fetched, by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which, the plots could have fetched ifsold, on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood, of the acquired lands becomes avaikible, then what could be done is tofind out the market value of the acquired, land with re.ference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it.wasput and increase its value by a. small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentiality ascertained on the basis ofevidenceto 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 m.ethod of giving increased, value for' such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in. the neighborhood,of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate • demand, as such, for buildingplots even, ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charge the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai O (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of adjoining undeveloped freehold lands, f'ollowing the dictum of Chand (Supra), a coordinateBench ofthis Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalu IA.App. No..119!j/2008& conni^clodAppealsofVillage;Bharthal LA.App. No. 29/)/;?0:lO& connnctodAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l,A.App, No. 11.1/ZOlO& connectedAppealsofVillagePnchanpur Page 23 ;1 by and the La.l the e of )f 29 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed 1 Court md or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixiipg the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value :)fthe land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisiton of the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken fro n 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 more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to ;idopt progressive increase method in assessment of the.market value cf the acquiredland'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that il may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ot only ol a few years,may becomeuinsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcasf, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhase-I and Dw,: 1hase-IIis ol sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. n!»/2008 & connectedAppealsofVillagaBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& conncictudAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pafe24of29 \- escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previou

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel fo respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Coirt has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Smhil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the deci;;ion in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find 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 \iew of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Governjiient's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the ac land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date offixationofthe minimumprice ;br the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1''April, 2000 till the date of years, the Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increa not. d or se 36, Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agricultura pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had cea.^ed to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be Liiban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the; land use ol the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not suffici lA.App. No, :195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthai I.A.App. No. 291/2010 connoctedAppealsofVillageBiiwasan l-A.App. No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsof Villagei'ochanpur Page: land ;nt to 5 of 29 presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideiedas developedlands. Ihe evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha S^'ami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosetliattlie sale oftlie said landswas for agriculturalpmpose. j7. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein pricedue to higlierdemand,on accountofpotentialityof the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, ihen appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpui'to areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidencJ to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarso[Radha Svvami Samng. Bern in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplat of VillageSamalldta(lix.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlaids and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Hx. PW-1/11) cannot^be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higliercompensationwhile relying upon the aforesiid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of ;he Apex Court in Baryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporatim (HSIBC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the mmiiiium price fixed by the Governmernfor 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 wljat lAApp. No. 1.1,1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanput •• • i \ "9 would be expected to be the market growth and what the markcit had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has bee -1 held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the ac quired lands in JaiSingh(Supra)as well as in SushilKumar(Supra)andji find I no reason to take a different view than the one which had been tal<.en by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of tiie considered view that the Reference Ccurt in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village.Bijwasaii has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question, landingof the ReferenceCourtin matterof VillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there beingno evidencethat the potentialand the situation ol the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGl 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-<S from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,PartI and Part 11, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention ijf the ReferenceCourt, hi the consideredopinionof this Court, on accountof aloresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover arid above n arket value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Coijrt or account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the. acquired lands LA.App. No, n.95/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp, No. 294/2010&connectHdAppealsofVillageBijv>^asan LA.App. No.-1.1.1/2010&connectcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur tn s the Page t> of 29 I..A

1.A IA.App. settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in theseword "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringtlie fact tliat il would be very difficultto proiidea dcfmitevalue qua potential,and in view of tlie fact tliat exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treat with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Goveminenfsmin prices tbr the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketval the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in ,sL/»/ Kumar(Supra),[am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abov;the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin ques ion.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalue assessedby Rcfcrcnce Court in matters pertainingto Village Bharthaland Vil Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parlift the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appeal^of •App. No. llinou)&conncctcdAppeal.^of Viliapf,Pochanpur Page 28 a , it is them inuiTi ue of the age I V the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the indicated above. Ihus, the marketvalue of the acc|uiredlands ol three villeigesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per Calegoi7 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per Ibr the Cateto lands in question. \-v|\ extent "these br the

¶41On the aloresaid enhancement in the compensation aw statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explain the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT granted,except for the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe a ior which periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensation be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶421he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare dispos in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remi compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Reg General ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree be accordinglyprepared. aided, ed in are )peal, shall 3d of : the strar leets January 06, 2012 pkb /vl I'. a • ! 0 ^ / O'i-T" GAU: JUDGE • 5 : I- ' ' A.App. No. 1195/2008&connnclodAppealsof VillaBeBharthal ^ .App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan A.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanp )ur Page 29ofizg y) =1= IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA Appellant Thi-ough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.SvNegiand Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfoi respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaancjl Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR • ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). ,• This is an application for seeking typographical correction Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the noti LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page in Pf' V f" ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas ah'eady givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 o afoiesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bi whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by lea counselappearingfor the appellants:Accordingly,this applicatii allowedandit is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in parag no: 40 of LA.App.No! 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Neces con-ectionsbecajTiedout.forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,tliisapplicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 1.2, 2012 pkb ^A.App.No.1195/2008 Page TSUNIL GAIU been " the ha', •ned 1 is aph sary

% * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November . 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 899/2008 PRATAP SINGH & ORS Appellant Thi-ough: Mr.B.S.Maan,.Mr.AinitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin 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.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhoslaand Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thalchur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. , Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni, Mr.MukeshKumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR