Azad Singh & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranhir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IIN THE HIGFI COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: lVovember id, 2(11 (GRID-A) + LA.APP.1 195/2008 (VILLAGE-B.H.ARTHAL) RANBIR SHARIVI.A AppeHani Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mjr.Amit Maan, M.r.,Jai Prakash, Ms.Smi'La' Maari, IVIs .R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadavand Ms.A.nita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr,FI.SRautela, Advocate V Mr.S.K.ROut and Mr.B .K.Routray, Mr.M .A.zam Ansari. Advocates. .Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, M.r.Samit Khosla and Mr .Dhananjay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.JI)ähiya, 'Advocate Pvir.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atu.I'T'ripathi, 'Advocate.. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.R.autela, (Advocales for respondent in appeais filed by U01) V rS US UNION OF INDiA. & ANR. Responcienis Through: Mr.Sanjay Pocida.r, Senior Advocate with .Mr.Siinjay .Paihak, Mr.Moh;itrao Jaclha.v and l\. s.Navlin Swain, IVI.s.K.Ka.umLldi ]K.iran, Advocates for LA(*/L JUl Mr.Ajay Verwa, .IVls .Beenashaw Soni. Mr.Pvi,ukesh V Kumar. f\4r.S.K.Sethi, Mi'.Pawan Mathur, Mr.1K.unal Sharrna, Advocate for .DDA

1.A..APP.41 2/2008 & CM.No.4096/2008 (Coss-Objcctions) LA.APP.452/2008:. LA..APP.45312008; L•A.APJ3 .688/2008 & CM.No.5990/201 0 (Cross-ObjecOons): LA.APP.697/2008 & CM.No.LI33/2009'(ross_0bjec(ions); LA..APP.70 /2008 & CM.No.5 1 0/2009 (Cross-Obiections).LA ... APP.768/2008' LA .i\P0.770/2008:, IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of \'illage Sharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010 & conneOed Appeals of Village Bllwasan I APP. No, 1:11/7(170 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpijr ? IA.APP.77 1/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 .(Cross-Objecl;ions); LA.APP.772/200 1,A.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.61 1/2009 .(Cross-Objeétions); LA. APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LAAPP.784/2008; 1,A.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); LAAPP.8 14/2008 & CM.No.806/20(Y (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 18/2008; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA..APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & C1\4.N0.779/201 (Cross-Objections); - CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008;LA.APP.90 1/200 LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.AP.P.95 1/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 ( ross-jections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/200$ ) 1,A.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.A1P.9.75/2008; 1,A.APP.976/2008;. LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM..No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008LAAPP. 1 029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2(1)08 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1031/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (Crss-Objcctions); ' ) LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 046/2008: • LA.APP. 1 047/2008;LA.APP. I 048/2008& CM.No.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP. 11049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 050/200:, LA.APP.105 1/2008 & CM.No.17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 052/2(1)08; LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1 054/2008 & CM.No.1 766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 055/2008;LA.APP. 1 057/2008 & • Ci\4.No.752/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 058/2008& CM.No. 1 557/2(.) 11 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM No. 17259/2008(Cross-Objcctions); 1A.APP. 1 060/2008;LA.API. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.Ai'P.i 075/2008; LA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objec).iOfls) LA.A11P.1084/2008& CM.No.i 7302/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.AP.P. 1086/2.0)1)8 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 087/2008& CM No.61 9/20)1)9 (Cross-Objections); ILA.APP. 1093/2008; A.APP. 1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; LA .Apl:). 1 1,03/2008 & CM.N.441/2009 (Cross-Objectis);LA.APP. 1108/2008 & CM.No.3 839/2009 (CrOss-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP.1 11 0/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA..APP.I 111/2008; LA.APP.1112/2008 & C.M..No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I 1 13/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 115/2008; LA.APP.1 116/2008; LA.A.PP.1 121/2008; LA.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP. 1129/2008 & CM No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objec).ions); LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP. 1135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); L.A.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA,A.PP. 1140/20(1)8; LA.APP.1 156/2008; LA.APP.1157/2008; LA.APP.1158/2008 & CM1No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 159/2008; LA.APP.1 161/2008; LA.APP.1 166/20(1)8; • LA.APP. 1167/2008' & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); .LA.APP. 1168/2008; LA.A11P.1 1.70/2008; LA.APP. 1171/2008; L.A. APP. 1172/2008; LA.APP.1 173/2008; LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APIP.1 178/2008; LA.APP. II 79/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008; LA.APP.1 182/2008; LA.APP.1 1 83/2008& CM.'No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); • LA.API. ii. 84/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.API. 11 86/2008& CM.No.701 3/2009 rA.App. No. I 195/2008 & conriocfd APPOISO1 ViHp,e BhrthiI LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bi)wasen LA.App. No, :111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . Pgp 2 of 29 Lf (Cross-Object ons) LA.Ai.I 90/2008; LA.APP.. 1191/2008; LA.APP. I I 2/200 LA.APP, 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APPi 195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; LA.APP. ii 98/2008& . LA.APP. I 200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.1 210/2008; LA.APP;1 211/2008; LA.APP. 12 12/2008; LA.APP. 1213/20,08; LAAPP. 1223/2008; LA.APP, I 225/2008& CM.NO. 6957/20O91ossOhjectiois); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1241 /2008&. CMNo.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections) LAAPP. I 243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/200.8; LAAPP. 1275/2008; LA.AP1).1276/'008 LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008:, LA.API. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LAAPP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 284/20Q. LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; 1,A.APP.37/2009 LA.APP.39/2009 LJ\ ... App42/2009 & . CM.No.746/201 1 (Cross-Objections) LA.AP1 59/2009; LA.App.73/2009 & CM.No71 03/2009 '(Cros-Objectios)'; LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & . CM.No.953/201 I (Cross-Objections) ; LA.API. 108/2009; LA.APP. 1.09/2009; L.A.APP. 121/2009; LA.A1P. 35/2009; LA.APP. 13 6/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; 'LA.APP:1'38/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 'I 45/2009;' LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; . LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP. 197/2009; LA.AIP. 198/2009; LA.APP. .199/2009; LA.App.201'po9• ) LA.ApP.202/2009 LA.App.203/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No,7027/2009 (Cross-Objections) 1,A.APP.21 0/2009 & CM.No.970/201 I (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP.2 11/2009; LA.App.220/2009 LA.:APp.222/2009 LA.APF'.223/2009 LA.APp.224/2009' LA.Ap.227/2009 LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.24 1/2009; LA.APp.245/2009 LA .Ai'P.246/20C'9 LA.APP.249/2009 LA.App.257/2009 LA.APP,295/2009 LA.A 1 1 1.305/2009 LA.APP.367/2009 ; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP 458/2009; 1A.APP.459/2009 LA.APP.466/2009 LA.App.480/2009• LA.APP.48]/2oc LA.APP.489/2009 LA.AJ'p.490/2009 LA.APP.491 /2009: LA.AP1 1.493/7CiCiO LA.A,Pp.494/2009 LA.APp.495/2009• LA.App.503/2009 LA.App.506/200c' LA.APP.507/209• LA.APP.508/2009 LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.5 10/2009; LA.APP.5 11/2009; LA.AP'P.5 12/2009; LA.APP 513/2009; LA.APP.567/2009 LA APP 572/2009 LA APP I 5/2010 LA iPP15/20 LA APP 8/20 JO LA. APP.404/20 10; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP. II 7612008 LA.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F. I 0(30)/96/L& B/LA/I34.1 7 dated 13.12.2000 . ._ issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition. Act, 1894 & Award 'No, 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) 0/ /0 (GRID-B) Reserved on: L)ece,'ñ/jci 08, 2011 01 , I LA.APP. 294/2010 (V1LLA( IIIJWASAN)

DEVENDER KUMA 'AppcHant Through: Mr.R. S.Toniar,,Mr.Vii'eJc1rLl Singh LA.Anp. No 1195/2003 & collneded AppeALs of V9Ige 9hrtIiI CA.App. No. 291/2019 & connoctp'J AppeIs of Village Bijwasari LA.pp. No. L.ti./292(J & C0nfl0Ctfl'ApI)OIs of ViIIge Pochnpjr 1!g9 3 of 29 Advocates Mr.S.K.Soianki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41 -46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76 versus UOI & A.NR .<esponcicnl.s Through: MrSanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with M.r.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.M,ohitao Jadiiav, and ]\4s2"1avl1n Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Rouiray, Advocates in appeals fij byUOi. vlIr\/irendr Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in. appeal filed by IJOE Mr.Barikey Bihair Sharma., Mr.Kuna I Shai ira and Mi OflI( is. S IJi Advocilcs for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP, 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 5 5/20 10 LA APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP.. 70/20 10 A APP 100/2010 LA APP 221/2010 LA APP 223/2010 1 A API 2261 1) 10 I A.APP. 242/2010 . LA,.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LI-\.APP. 2811/2.0 i 0 1-1 A. APi' 2 82 /2 010 LA APP 283/2010 L A '\I'P 28/1/2010 t A A )p 2 5/2010 .LA.APP:287/2i0 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 289/20.10. LA.APP. 294/201() LA APP.. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LAAPI'. 313/2010 t.A.APP .345/2(310 LA APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/201 0 LA.AP. 34812010 LA. APP. 349/20 10 LA.APP. 3.50/201 0 LA.APP. 351/10 IA.APP. 352/2010. LA.APP. 35:3/2010 1 A AiP 354/2010 1 A APP 356/2010 1 A \1l) 35/201 0 LA APP 0 C LA.A1P. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 339/20 0 LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/20 l.0 ,LA.APP .36312.010 I A AP 405/2010 LA APP 406'201 0 LA p1) 07/01 0 I API 40' t) LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.API'. 438/201.0 . LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.API7. 722/201.0 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/201.0 LA.APP: 725/201.0 LAJ\ PP. 720/201 (1 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 731./2010 L.A.APP. 73:2/2010 1A.APP. 730/2010 LA,APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 82./20 10 LA.APP. 964/20 10 LA.APP. 286/20 0 LA.APP. .364/20.10 LA.APF. 77/201 O LA.APP. 80/201 0 LA.APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/201 1 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F. 1 0(30)96L& B/L.A/I 341 7 dai,ccl 13. 12.2000 i.ssu.d. under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, I I94 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Vii la.ge Bijwasan,, Delhi) AND . l.A.App, No. 1:195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhertliel LA.APP. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeale of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/20:10 & ço:inected Appeals of Village Pochenpur . . . . P.P, 4 of 29 (GRIII)-C) Reserved on:_Dcceini'iL21LL.L.

¶4LA.APP. 11.1/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEfTAJ RAM AND ORS App011ants Through: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and M.r.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 1040, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr..S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.Api:.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) versus 0'

• UNiON OF IN1)1A & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sañjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav. and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocales for UOIILAC • I\4r.Bankey i3ihari Sirma, Mr.Kiinal Sharma and Mr .Somer K Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.A1:p. 111/2010 LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.A1P. 209/2010 LA.API. 21 5/201 0 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 LA.APP. 2:30/2010 LA.APP. 254/2010 LA.APP. 260/201.0 LA.APP. 261/2010 LA:APP. 27012010 LA.APP. 292/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 305/2010 LA.A1'P. 30612010 • LA.APP. 307/2010 LA.APP. 317/2010

1..A.APP. 392/2010 LA.A.PP. 393/2010 . LA.APP. 395/2010 LA.APP. 396/2010 LA.APP. 397/2010 LA.APP. 41212010 LA.APP. 420/2010 LA.APP. 432/2010 LA.APP. 433/2010 LA.APP. 434/2010 LA APP 466/2010 LA APP 489/2010 L1\ APP 577/2010 LA APP 63 /2010 I A APP 637/ 0 10 LA APP 639/20 0 [A APP 640/2010 1 A APP 657/20 10 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA,APP. 662/2010 'LA.APP. 741/2010 LA.APP. 758/2010 LA.APP 767/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LAAPP. 784/2010 LA.APP. 918/2010 LA.APP. 919/2010 LA.APP. 1052/2010 LA.APP. 61/2011 LA.APP. 6412011 LA.APP. 65/2011 LA.APP. 116/2011 LA.APP. 117/2011 LA.APP .1 19/2011 LA. APP. 120/2011 LA.API. 121/2011 LA APP. 129/2011 LA,APP. 429/20 1l LA.API'. 476/2011 LA.APP. 485/2011 LA.APP. 52:1/2011 LA.APP. 522/2011 LA.APP.523/2.0 ii LA.APP. 525/2011 LA. i\PP. 526/2011 i.A,AP1' .535/20.11 LA.APP. 536/201 1 LA.APP. 554/201 F LA.APP. 591/201 I I.AApp. No. J 195/2008 & connected Appeals ol Village Bharthal tAAp9. No 29/2010 & connecled Appeals of Village Pijwasan LAApw, No: 111/2010 & connced Appeals of Village Pocharipur Page 5 07 19 (. (Relating to Notification No. 'F'.,i O(30)96-.L& 13/LA1I 3417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land. Acquisition Act, 1894 &. Award 'No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpir, Delhi) COBAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 06M102012 Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation I iS sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at ) the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals. pertaining to .Notfcatton NoEl 0(3 0)96-L& B/LA/134] 7 doted 13.12.2000, re.1atng to geographically contiguous Villages Bbart.hal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

¶2Acquisition process for p.laiined development of. 'Dwarkci Phase-1I/ in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of !Vo.tjcoion of 131h December, 2000 under Section. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act., I 89 perta.1.nlng to vast 'tract of agricultural land i.fl one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, Biasan. and Pochanpu'. . Agricultural land of the appelkmt.s herein in. the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003 ;and Award No.30/200-2003 granting compensation, i3.8'2' lacs per acre icr Block 'A' (ievel field - with top oii) and

12.32 la.cs per acre ibr. Block '13' (without top soil).

Dissatislic d with the asscsrneri of mai kct value ol Lhc]i .Icqun cd LIt.App. No. I395/2008 & coiner ted Appeal) of Village [tharthal Lf\.App, Na. 29'1/2010 & connected Appeals of Vilage Bijwsan t_A.Aop. No. ii1/201[] & connectec /\ppeals u Villae Poclianpor Pope Gil 2; / agn cultural lands, appellants had sqght reference under Section 18 Of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the Reference Court yide impugned judgment had. enhanced compensatibn

1.00 ]acs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block A' and i 3.36 lacs per acre for their Block B' land in Villages Bharthai and i3ijwasan; wherea;;, references relating to Village Pochanpur have beeii dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancehient of compensatIon sought by the api.eiia.nts of Villages 13harthal and Bijwa.san is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, wherea appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gathig and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246; Anjani Main Dessoi vs. State ofGoa andAnr.,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh Rain and Ors i's, State of Hwywui and 14nr, •

(2010) 1 8CC 444; Sanguntluila (Dead) through LBs. Vs. Special Tehsiidar Lwid Acquisition & Ors,, (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ron vir Sing/i and Am', vs. Union of india AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chiidhg Fakira Pdii

(D) t/iro ag/i LBs vs. The SpecudLtthd Acquisition Officer, Jaiga(in. 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jài La! vs Union of India 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Raina Nwid (since decease(l throng/i LRs vs. Union 0111ndfia 2002 (65) DR.J 1 (DB); (Id/ia Das vs. State of Har,ano 2010(9) SCALE 41, Chalws vs. State of Pun/a/i & Ors, 2011 (9) S CAi.E 362; A vinash Dhavajj Naik i's. State of Maharashtri, (20O9' ii SCC 171; A/ma Sing/i (Dead) throng/i LBs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; WP.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Slut indu Khor'ana vs. Gram Sa/iha & Ors, decided on 2603.2O1 0 Sec/ai Land Acquisition Officer:& Anr vs. M1.K. Rafiq So/ic/i, (20 I 1) 7 5CC 714; Thakarsihhaj Dev/ihhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, LAJ\p. No, L195/2008 & conrieted Appeais of VWage Bhulhal

LA,App. Na. 291/20 jo & connected AppeaPs of Village Bijwsn Lf\.App. No 111/2010 & Appeak oViUsge Pochnpur . . .. • [' ape ., • (4 Gujarat and Atnr., AIR 2001: SC 2424; Hwyima StoIc' Industrial Developflwflt CorporaIiOfl (2010) 11 SCC i75;Risal Singh & Ors 1A Union of India & Anr, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Chand vs of India and Anr, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil ud Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jjvanbhai Pole! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valiiyammal and Anr vs. Special TehsiMsr (Land Acquisitiofl) and Anr, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiron Thndon vs AliahabaIi Development Authority, (2004) 10 5CC 745; Mahesh DatJatry Thirthkor vs. State of Ma.harash Ira, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General,) & Ors Vs. Uilon of lndia & Aar 176(2011) DLI 361; W.P.(C) No, 4.284/2007 titled as Surol Singi vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr,, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of india, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpa! & Ors vs. Union of India, (199 7) It 5CC. 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs: Union of India 9 decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of india, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhuie Rm vs. Union of India, 2010

(170) ULT 371.

¶6On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outse1 0 t was urged by Mr.B.S.Maafl, learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to he first understood in order to. appreciate its potential which must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period 01 time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by M m r.R.S.Toar counsel for appellants that DelhiRewari-JOdhPU1' broad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, di\id.ing it, into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IGI Airport, New Delhi LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & conr,ecled Appeals of V3lage Bharthl .A.App. No. 29020 10 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasafl LA.App. No. 111/203.0 & conneCted Appeals of Village Pochnpor l'ege 13 of 29 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and. Bliarat. Petroleum and a roa.d 100 meters wide starting from NfI-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-IT again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where iGi Airpoit is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan.nd Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned couns1 for the appellants that northern part of the land. of Village Bharthal wasfirst acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 197.1 and again in the year 1980 ftr /7 establishing indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1.984 for development of Dwarka Phase-i an.l:1 . the lands on the western side of Villages ha.mnol.i and. Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development, of Phase-il, Dwarka Sub-Cit. Attention was dräwn.to the aks siras/map to highlight that the boundary of , Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village l)hool Siras are contiguous. It was strenuously urged by Mr,B.S.l\4aan, learned counsel 'fbr the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate Lhe potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and . has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16uh1 October, 2000 vide which: land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to rcsiclential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infàct the entire land of Village Bhartlial had ceased. to be rural in view of the Notification of 24th October, 19914. it was argued with much vehemence by Mr. S .K.Rout, I earned, counsel for the a.pnellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly, discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. .Ran'w LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of V8lage Rhai'thal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of ViUage Pochanpur . (r Reddi & Ors. vs. Lund Acquisition Gicer, Ii/pderabad & Ors, (1 995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Who Dass i's. State of Thryana & Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of [he acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot he limited to a near future alQne and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D..Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpui to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from T, 52 lacs to Z62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot hc thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Coui -t, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in An/ani Molm Dessai vs. Stofr o/ (iioa and .Anr, (20 10) 13 SCC 71.0, the average of sale exem plars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to 37 iacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appeilanu; are the conprab.lc sale . instances, therefore, reliance placed by We . . Rcfere:ne Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates for determining i.l:ie market value of the a.cquired land is patently erroneous. I L Assessment of market value of the acquired laud was sought. by Mr.R.Goclara.,.l,ea,rnecl counsel for the appellants on the bsis of the L&. DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of altcniatc plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the location, situation and potentaiity of the acquired. land, determination of its market vs Inc is LA.App. No. i 1Y5/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bliarthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijw5san LA App. No. :1.11./20i0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . P5 P, v . :11 ci 79 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively onthe basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwa..rka Phase-If or on the basis of the Pre-I)eteriiii ned Rates (PDR.$) as referred to above.

1.2. In the written synopsis, appellant - Impulse india Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned udgrnent on the following grounds:- a,) "Igi ores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the il.wcird No. 26/2002-2003 dated

¶23i0.2'002 being flawed in the course of the proceedtngs Civil Writ petition No. 19012 of 2006. (Referred to ih cross-examination of appellant dated

7.7.2007) . h,) Does not account for the Jct that the Public ]Votice dated 18. 9. 1987 adversely qffecteci the rates of lanci in the. area for more than 15 years before the lVotifIcation under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. c) Va/uing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the Government of 1Vctioiwl Capital Tdr'itory of Delhi is not in .iccordance with the law laid clown b) various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'bie Supreme Court to Sangunthala versus Thhsildam' •, 2010(3) 8CC 661. ci,) ignores the evidence and other ftictors 1/1)/i1ch as per established law has to be considered bej'dre (,iscertciiniog the value of the land u,i.cir acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in vaiu. 1e of the Sale Deeds produced be/ore the trial Court whereas as per the low established by the Hon 'b/c Siipremne Court tr the recent case of Chinda Faidra Patil versu)c Special Lamid 4qui5it1o1l Offlcei, Civil A,7e0/ /'' o. 5475 of 2007 fh Hon 'b/c Supreme Cou..t has 5pecifctiily held that So/c Dccci show iig higher rate should not be disregarded in LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & conneded Appeals of Village 8Na,ftal LA.App. No. 294/201.0 & connected Apoesls of ViHage ltijwasan LA.Ap, No .111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . . 1) 1r 11 o 2(1 \' case the average sale price is lower. Further in 'Anjana Molu .Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) 8CC 710, the Supreme Court has also held i1iat ihe highest of the exemplars and not by averagzng qf different types of sales transactions should be cons dered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a cerian lan(I Relied iipon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in L/JC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of1he subject land while ignoring the material vvhich indicite that the market value of the lind is much higher than 15 bc pel, acre in Block A and 1336,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the I-Jon thle Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. Slate of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444: As a consequnce, the irhpugned judgment iefiised to return an actual finding on the issue No. 1 framed on 27.2.2007. Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide IVotIji.caton of the .lVIunicipcd Corporation of Delhi, the land use of 1/illage Dl:iooi Siras and I3hartial was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and caine ,'i.ow under the urban 'boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and A'c;t.ificatious 0,1 Government f' land use change show that in future larid.c an be subjected to, residential, conin'ercia/ and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to i'nenton that the appellant lead evidence in respect of the 74th amendment of' the Constitution ofindici, w.e.f 1.6.1.993 JX .4, by virtue . of whtch the IViuni.cipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land, is situated, was deemed a municipcil area and the municl2a1 (.ounsellor 'was elected from there. No Pcmucliavat elections were held in the area. /1) Refused to app/v the law iid down i'i 4 JR Court 3467, ]?.anvir Sing'h . and 4nr vs. Udion qf India and refused to consider the lact that 'the deveicp;'nen/ in the a, cci has a di ccl effect on the p1 i ' f/IQI (1 wi//mi ffui-c/zaser would pay fCc the subject land.

i) .lgnored the fact that Respondent No .2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BICF'.liaI LA..App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasen LA.Apo, No, 12.112020 & connected Appeak of Village Pochanpor I"ngo 12 of 29 "i auctioned slmliarly situated land as commerc jot blocks at the rate of' about 2. 6 latch and concluded that the said land is wholly underde')eioped land. j The valuation of the subject land is even ioi'i;'dr than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 foi' similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the p055/b/lily of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Dwarka Phase H. it is reiterated that the land us. of 1/il/age D/'ioolSiras and Bharthai was changed and theseS' are(7 -s ceased to be

ag7.icuiturai and caine now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. 1) 1iored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality oft/i.e said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose/or which land is acquired is a relevant factor. 14/h/Ic determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building' potenticility to he used far building purposes in immediate or in near .fiiture needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings oti the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as houses ites. The lanci were acquired far purpose of putting up residential quarters. As' a portion oft/ic lan,d is being constclered as house site the adfoining lands have the potential Yf being put in better use as house sites in the near future. In the brief synopsis by Ved. Pal 'and. others of LA. App. No. 1347/2009 the iactua.l details have been provided with a. prayer that the appellants of this appeal he treated at par with the co-appellants or the other appeals M. these bunch of appeals. Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of '[he appellants, it was urged by Mr.Ana.nd Ya.dav, Advocate that the effect 'at' td\.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals or Village 13hr1hal LA.App. No. 294/20J.0 & corinecfed Appeals of Villa g e Biiwasan flApj -,. No. 1:11/2010 & cor,nected Appeak of Village Pochanpor Page .13 (l .29 urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh .Datta/rap Thirthka "s. £vIe of Maliaras/ifra AIR 2009 SC 2238; .Kqii Mehra (Major Gene,?,!) & Ors. Vs. Union of india & Anr, l 76(2011) DLT 361 and that Prc-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the ai -ea are i'elev In determine the market value of the acquired lands and inthct the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Coui to assss the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, e.nhanccmeit of compcnsatft)n reflecting just, fair and adequate market value Lor the acquired lands 'is sought in these appeals. iS. Arguing the cross_objections filed by the Respondents Mr. Sanjay Podclar, learned Senior Coujise] urged that though as PCI' Section 5.1 A of Laud Acquisition Act 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant cvidcrIc( delermjjjatjon of the ma.ekei vajue unless and until the same is jroperiy. connected with the land in questiOn and element ol spcci I lhncy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation 01" the pioperty, pJ'oxiniity to the village etc. are also rcuirecl to be 'considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing coned market valu.e of the acquired lands have keen illegally rcjcted by the Reference Couji and while placing reliance upoit tiie decisio,j5 in ThI La-PS. Union of hnij, 2002 (62) . DIU 227, Sapa/ & Ors i's, Union of india, (1997) 11 scc 423; La! Chad i's. Union of India and /nr

(2009) IS SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sash/I 'I(unn,,' pc. Union of india decided on 26.09.2011 it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realitjc until reasons fbi' such sharp increase are explained by , pi'oduciig' in evidence the seller LA.App. No .i.L95/:oo8 & corinectod AppeIs of ViIIgp BIirth I.A.pp. No. 294/2010 & C0flflecd AppeIs of ViiIge Bijwsn LA Apo No. 11]/2OiO & -cumle(ted AooeIs of ViUge Pochnpur ' Pi Li of 79 and the purchaser as no prucien.t person having knowledge of the usual prevalent ti-end in the market would paysrch a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radh.a 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/Pie-Deternijnecj Rates cannot he counteflaiced in view of the c1cclsiorl of Apex Court in La! Giand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kunwr (supra) and Ra/ Siflvgh (supra).

1.6. So faras potentiality of , the land is concerncd it was urged by Mr.Sanja.y Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondcnts/crc objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimun indicative p1-ice of the agricultural land by the Go'vernnieni as on 1 April, 2000 nd by granting appreci.atioi thereon 12% jcr annum., market value o the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Refereice Court as in Sis/iii 'Kun'ma (supra) appreciatjoj @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is suhniUed that there is no scope fbi ftirthe.r elthancenierjt from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impuned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the Reference Court while taking into consid erdtion ti le ajiprec i

per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while grant lug appreciation @ .10 0,/6 per an m nu and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the afdresaid, extent. 1 7. After consicleriig the rival submissjojis advbnccd by boil -i the sides and upon close perusal of the ina'pugnecl iudgnient, the evidence oii record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaer to a wi] Nne LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeefs of Village BhrthI LA.App No. 2912010 & connected Appeals of villaee OijwaSSn ' LA App. No J "12()-l-0 & connected Appeals of Village 1'061Cnn1)L,r of 29' seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instancc. While dealing with the question of potentid value of t. ic acquired. land, what has to be coi.sjdered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reitrated by the Apex Court in Vdho Dass vs. Saie of liar pww JL Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- '( the situation of ii e acquired land Vis-ci-Vis the city or the town or vzIlage ivhichl had been growing in siz because of its commercjcl, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population; ii the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, he they residential, commercial or fndustria/ as the case may be; possibility C?f obtaining water and electric siq7ply/or occupants of buildins' to be put up on that land: iv absence of stat utory impediments or the like for us/rig the acquired land 1/br cbng purpose; () existence of higi'iwa'vs', public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the )lc1ntty or close proximity of the acquired land,' 00 benefIts or advantages of 'education dl institutions, health core centres, or the like in thes uri-ounc/ing areas of the acquired land which ma 'become available to the occupiers of buildimigs, if built on time acquired land; and (iim lands around the acquired land or .tl2b acqured land itself being in demand fbi-lmuilding pmrpose, to specfy a few. I 8. The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also br bwid[ng purposes depends upon a large. number of tictors. For the said pUrpoSe, the Court may not only have to bea.r in mind the purpose li' LA.App. No, i 1.95/2003 & connected ApeeIs of VIUge Bharthaj

LA.Aop. No. 291/2010 & c000ec(ed /ppeeis of ViHege.(fjjwasen LA.App. No. 1111201() & connected Appes of VWge Pochnpur P,i4p 16 of 29 which tlie iand.s were sought to be acquired but also the subsequrit events to some extent. It has been so obsrved by the Apex Court III Ai,inash (sujpra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lancls it has been held by the Apex Court in Alma Singh (supra) that the exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. Aforesaid djctu.m stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Am' v's. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC - 71.4. The legal proposition which emei;ges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is. no basic dif'Thi -enc.e ./ either in location, situation or potentiality of, the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage avaiIabie to the!]] even as regards future prospects, there is no justifcation for reducing the compei sation on the ground of distance between similarly situated laiid and the acquired land. . II is a well established proposition of law that the . burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for 'a pa.rtcuiar p'u:rpose. But, it . is equal I)' tr'Ll e that the burden, of proving inacIecuacy of cotnpcnsati 0!] J, awarded is on the claimait. For this proposition, the decisioh of th Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can he referred lo with iclvantage. Apex Court ir Valliyath.nwl (Supra), while taking note of the lact that th.e acquired land was situated in close viciiiity of resdenl.ral colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that dcd.ucl.ion of 40% towards development charges was improper: The pertin ('nt observations made by the Apex Court'in An/ani MO/u Dessal (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- LtApp. NO. 1.1.95/2008 & connected Appeels of ViPage Bharthal . LA.App. No. 2940010 & connected Appeek of ViUa,ge B1jwasn LA.App. Jo. J 1.1/20.1.0 & connect€d Appeak of Village Pochanpur , . . Pagr 17 oF 29 EWE "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to szimlar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona f/dc transaction, will he considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be tci ken, as representing the market price. I3ut where the va7ues disclosed in respect of Iwo sales are markedly different, it can only lead to cm injerence that they are with reference to di'simiiar lands or that the lower value sale is on account oj under-vaivaton or other price depressing reczsorts. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to.

¶22It would, be worthwhi1 to take note of the clinching observations • peiiaining to determination of fair market rate of acqiircd lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakiru Put!! (Supra), which are as S Follows:- "It is well settled that genuine and bona: [ide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactiois proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated/n the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utlitty taken place between a willing vendee and the wlltng vendor which could he expected to refict the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the rea.1 basis to detern'tine the market value.

¶23Principles to determine the market, value of the acquired lands as reiterated-by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corjporatian LtJ. (O1V'GC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase icr ktnd prIces depends on factors - situation of the land, nature of deveiopi'neni 10 surrounding area, availability of land for deveiopi'nei'it in the area, and the demand fc' land in the area in ru.rcii areas unless there is any !rospect of deveiopmeiit in the vi.cmliy, increase in prices would he slow,' stecidy and gradual, without any sudden spurts Oijiu/'t)S. l.App. No. 3 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village 13haitl,al l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. :1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . 1P 18 ol 9 On the other hancl in urbcin. or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where. the, demand for land is hicJ'i and where there is coi'ti"uctiàr aCtil)lt:i) all around, the' escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. in some pockets in big cit/es, due to rapid development and high demand far lcind, 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 p for years or rose margznally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2 per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urbizn/se,ni-urbcm areas and increases in mai'*et 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 7 n rural areas would at best he A only around half of it that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. W This rule of thumb reftrs to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted/n the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate qf increase, or any specflc evidence relating to the actual increase in przces, then the increase to be applied would depend upon ilesaine. Normally, recourse is taken to. the mode of determining the market value by providing aJpropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands' in prevIous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evtdence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or 4" acquisitions of comparable lanes in me neig'ibourh:ooc1.. f,ie said method is reasonably scife where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a fei'v years, that is pto fOur to fIve years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even f it relates to ci neighbouring land. What l'nay be ci reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsofO and unreliable stanclat'd where the gap is larger. For example, fOr cletei"mzntny the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adoj7tinc the annual increase method with reference th a sale 01' LA.APP. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BlisrUisi LAApp. No 204/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Pa1e 19 of 29 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfrii/s. This is &ecause, over the course of, years,, the rate ' of annual lncrease may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood 0/occurrence of varying per jods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard ofncrease. This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in i-Iannmiu State industrial Development Gorporatio;R (1IISILD C) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation ftr the 'acquired. lands by adoptin comparative sales methods. What was said by the Apex Court in HSI DC' (Supra) is as under:- "I'Vhen djrent categories of lands Or lands with diffrrent situational advantages) are acquired/or the same purpose, y say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of' their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notification. t0ndisputcdly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land, of Village Bhartl.ial, Village Bi.jwa.san of the period in clues! ion are not available ncl the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by tiTle appellants is of Village Pochanpur. t.e., tue seven Sale Deeds vide which religious Jnstituton,, i.e., Rac.iha Swam! So/s( ng, Bees had. purchased the agricultural landin Village Pochanp'ur at a price ' which varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. ' Whether af&esajd Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) which are basically betwen one set of co-Owners and i?adha Swain! So/sane', ]leas in 'respect of the compact block of land measuring I 8B ighas and 6 Biswa.s situated in Village Pod anpur reflect the correct market \'alu of, the land in the V iags in question is the moot question whH'i is required to he answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exerplars, i.c1 Sale II)ceds LA.App, No. 1195/7003 & condncteii Appeals of VUlage Bliarthl LA.Apn, No. ).Y'l/20:L0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwaser, LA.Ap). No, '.11.1170108, connecled Appeals of Village pochanput Pee 20 ol 29 S 1-4 -1 (Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PWi/i 0) ii.dicate that its price Va.rjes from Z 521 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Meaiiiig thereby, the entire land, of the sale excmpiars -- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-]./4 to Ex.PWi/I.0) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situatjo.n of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached in each parcel of land, of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these .aie exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired larids in question 'F'l'i( special need of the purchaser of these a.ricu Itural lands in VIII age Pochanpur vid.e Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-.1/4 to Ex.PW-i/l 0) has not been brought out as the purchaser/ven.dee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants.' Ha.d the 'purchaser/vendec of tl'ie aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high pri 'br these lands. The specia.1 'fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Rcidhc, $'womi Sat'sang, I3eas who had purchased. more than 33 13ighas of land, at an exorbitant 1rice in Village i\4aniurpur vide Sale Deed executed on 2 March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 26 6/2008 titled as Jot Singh vs. Union of, 1nda decided on 23.8.2011. and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Ra/ Si;igh vs. Union of Thciio, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exe:mplar of Village 1\1amu -pur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands;

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition', but it has come in evidence that the acqun:ed. lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lap;ls. No prudent person. having knowledge of prevailing LA.Ap):. No.1.195/2003 & connected Appeals of Village 1311rI:hs1 tA.App. No, 291/2010 & connecleci Appeals of \'illage Bijwaan LA./\1ip. No. I . 1.1/20:10 & connected Appeals of VOlage Pochanpi.ir lpe 21 0 21) market pci ce of the I and in question woul ci 1a' such a high pricb unless and until such purchase is meant for special conscieration and So, in the consi clered opinion, of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., . Sa c Dccds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex .PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. . So fa]T as th,e sale exemplar of Village Sainaikha (l"x.PW 1/11) rliecl upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of r

¶1,76,55, 172.4 1 per acre relating to Sale Deed 0:1: 27 h January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (:Jx.pW 1/'! 1) was situated on the National J-Iigl]wa.y - 8 and because. vide Sale Deed vendoyhad sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therelbre, it had, fetched such a high 'price. In view thereof this sale exemplar cannot he 1.reated as a representative price for the acquired lands in C1CS t iOn. Left with no sale exemplars disclosing real stic price of similarly situated, lands in the vicinity, now it -i's required to be considered is 'to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates ibr the developed lands and Pre-Determjnccj Rates for the alternate, plots by ti:ic Dl')A ought to he adopted W detern.ii.ne the true market 'value' of the accuirecl 'lands in C]iIestjon. Parameters govern ng flxati On of m arkel. Va I Lie of acquired lands W high lighted by Apex Court in its cIe'ision reported as IF Rain Reddp and Ors, P. Land Acqusttion 0/fleer Hpdiabw/ Uihan 'Dei'e//apmeni Aul/writy ilyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) 5CC 305 are as under:- "/2. Z]hwe per, in either o/' the said cases i'ihether 'II he the detei',ninatjo, 0/the market iwlue c/the acquire;/ /oi'ic( '1i'it/i htiidi:ng potent/a/i with reference to the price //chcd by vale ofplots in a we/i deve/o,jec/ LavoW in the nelgi7/Jorhoo(/ LA.App. No. J.195/7008 & CO-111POPCI Appeals of VUlege Bl'arthnl LA.App. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Villgp Bijws50 - LA.App. No. I.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocheopur Pnge 22 o 2.0 / or whether it he the aetermjnatton oft/ic market value of the acquired land wzth building potentiality with reference to the price/etched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped la out of building plots in the neighborhdod, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price /tched or to heftched by the sales yf PlOt's in the layout, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price whmh the plots could have fetched i/sold on the (late of the publication of the prelmnary notifIcation under Section 4(1) of the Act. Furti er, where no evidence of 'price fCtched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market valud of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA. Act, according to the actual use to which it 'was put amd increase its value, by ) a small percentage having regard to the c;ieg'ree of its building potenti.alty ascertained on the basis of evIdence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to he given shall not exceed 1151h qf the market value of the land found out according' to its actual ii's er since resort to the method of giving' increased value /hr such building potentiality ars"es only when there is no evidence of sales, of building plot's in the neighborhood of the acquired icind indicGtiNg' that there was no inimnedicile de171,61nc2 as such, for building plots even if fOrmCd in the acquired. land. " 3 1. In view of thc difficulties in .adoptioi. 01: tate ort land ctuigcd by the DJ).A after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights the Apex Court hi La! Cliand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon 1.11e allotment ,ratCS/Prc-Detcrnijjed Rates in determining the narkct value of the a.clj oinin.g undeveloped'freehold lands. Following the di cturn of La! (7mand (Supra), a coordinate Benh of this Court in Jal Siagh (Supi'a) and Sushil Kwnar (Supra) has excluded 'the DDA rates qua thO de'eloped lands as being not relevant for assessing t1W market; value ol No,'1 I9,,/7OOR & Cot'o,ecicd Appe N of VilNge Nha rUo, I ft.1\pp, N, 29/2OiU & COflflOCtcJ Appeak of ViUage Bijwasan LAJpp, No, .11 i/2010 & Connected Appeals of ViHage Pochanur Porte 23 Of 29 the undeveloped, acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Referenc;e Court has rightly not adopted the .DDA rates for allotment of developed land or th.e DDA' s. Pre-Deten'nined Rates for aitbrna.te all otments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question. • Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive ircrease method would. he relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for deve]opwent of Dwarka Phase-1 it was s&ight to be argued bMr .Sanjay Poddar 1 learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 1 0k 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 i nstarit Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-Il, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated pi and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is U n.j usti fl ed. Aforesaid argumen.t does not hold good in view of th.e dictum of the Apex Court in Liii CIwnd (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive ihcrease method in assessment of the market value of the acqumeci land only wien. the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it 'nay he unsafe, eVen if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be reliable standard, iftlrie gap is of oniy of a fr' years, may become unsafb and u.nrUa.hie standard. where the gap is larger. in the instait. case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-i and Dwa'rka Phase-IT is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA,App. N, 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Pharthal LA.App No. 29/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No' 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . Page 24 of El escajatlon over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanja.y Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @1 10% per annum. Alter having perused the dCcIsion in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find, that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market vat nc determined by the R.efereilc6 Cowl, has been granted and so, by rely rig upon Sushi! Kumar. (Supra) escalation granted by the Reibrence' Court ( 1 2% per an num cannot, be reduced to 10% per annum. in liii S VieW u [ ttrc.m.a.tter, the cross-obectjons of the respondent are dism i ssccl.

¶3Now what is to be seen js whether adoption. of Governments m i.n.i mum price of the agricultural land in l)el hi, by the Reference Coi_i rt is reasonable criteria for cltermining the ms.rl<.et value of the acquired i and and as to whether the escalation of 1 2% per ann urn granted by the Reference Court 'from the date of lxa.tion of the minimum price for the agricultural, land by the Government we. SI April., 2000 till the claie of Notification in the instant appeals desej.''es to be further increased or not.

¶36Adloj.)tion of Government's mjrii,mu,n'i rates of agricultural I pertaining to the Notification in question has been assa.i ted by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased i.e be an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 24' October, 1 994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to bc urban. J.t is trite that vide aibresaicl Notification of.the year 1994 the land use of the acctu i.recl land had changed but that by .i tsei'f is not su lii cien t to LA App. No. 1195 112008 & connected Appeals of Village Ilharthal LA.Aop. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village t3ijwasan L.A App No :1.11/20:10 & connected Appeals of Village Pochan'pur Pcge 2501211 /; 7~> I presume that the acquired lands had gained potentaIity for being considered as developed la.nck. The evidence led. is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not, only this, even, the sale exemplars of Radiw Swain! Satsang Bea.s heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of. the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that t.il I the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been incrcase in price clue to higher demand, on accoujt of potentiality of t;he acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994,

then ) appellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area S in question. i3ut, indeed appilants cannol rei.y upon the sale of the land in Village Pochaipur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samallda (Ex.PW-l/i 1) without. leading any evidence Li establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exm.plars of i?ad/ia Sivan'd Satsaug .Bas in Village Poclianpur and the sale CXCITI plar

Village SainalHia (Ex.PW-1/1 1) are comparable with the acquired lands' and so the contiguity of the acqu ireci land with the sale, instance of V i,l lagc Sama,lkha (Lx. P'iV - 1/il) cannot be treated to he s 1,11,171c.ici'it ground to grant higher compensation while rlyng upon the a ('cress H .

sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore -referred dictum of the Apex Court in Hurpana State industrial Developn'ient Corporatim' (JlS1D (Supia), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awardoci for the lands acquii'ecl under the same No'Li f'iëation in the light cl the in inim urn price lixed by the Government for the agricultural land in 1)011)1 which geni ally factoi s i ll tn ii SC Of 1 icc duo to high potentiality. Talin'ip note of' the fa,ct that ther is a gap between what LA.App No. I 19/2008 & conflecfec i\ppos of ViHnge 6hrth

L.J.App. No. 29112019 & connoc€d /\ppeJs of ViINp,e 'Bijwls2n LA.App. No. I. 2./20.i0 & c0006Ute9 ppeI of VWge I'ochnpur ' " ' Pc 2.6 0129 would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be. reasonable, basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in .Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kthwr (Supri) and I Find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases Of foil Slnh (Sipra) and Sushi! Kuinoir (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Referncc Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price For agrieuitural lancEs in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in quest ion. S Finding of the Reference Court in mattr of 'Village BharthA,i and Village

1.3iwa.san, of there being no evidence that the potential and the sItuation of the acquired iand.s is similar to salle exemplars is borne out from 'I.he evidence on record. But .1 find that the aspect of higher potentiaflly of, the acquired laj"ids being in close vicinity of the IG"E Airport, Indian Oil and B hat at Pet i ol eum Depots ai RI of Ea1 [way Ime passing throt.1gh Vii Ii c Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vjdc road. staiting from 1\I l'i-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, cli vid ing the acquired lancEs I.F.I. two portions, and. there being Farm Houses in I he . vjcinitv of the acquired lands has somehow missed the i't1cn'tion of the Reference Court. in the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aftresajd locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certai ly assume higher building pol;entjality heii.g in vicinity of Dwarka Phasc1.]L What persuades this Court to grant Ii Q)/ increase over and above market value of the acquired lands as a.ssesscci by the Reference Court 1)11 account of the higher bUilding polent.1alily in ti'ic seq uirecl lands is the LA.App. fo. 1 I.95/2u00 & Mol'Pcl.er AppeIs of ViJIge I3IirhaI LA.App.No, 294/2010 & Connected Appeels of ViIJs',e Bijwsn LA.Ajjp, No, 1.1/2010 & Connected Appetils of Villege Poclianpur ' Pspe 27 o 29 aptly highlighted by the Apext Court ii Mirza scttled legal postiofl NausherH'afl K/urn i's, Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- 'i'Vhen 0 Me a conclusion is reached that there was the possibtity of the acquired land being used far putting up buildings in the ii'nrnediate or near jaiure, such conclusion would be suffIcient to hold. that the acquired land had ci bujldng potentallty and proceed to determine ii..market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."

¶39Considering the fact that it woulci be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in: view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved. in the matters of assessing air compcnsatiOfl it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me 1.0 treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's ilinimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of. the acquired lands as there are no special features to ti-cat the acquired lands differently and. sio ., appellants of Village ,Pcchanpur arc ireated at. par with thou: counter-part, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. i-ioweer, while relying upon the decision in ushil Kurnar (Supra), 1 am inclined to g.ra.n.t 1,0% increase over and above the market value of the acqu.fted I ancis determined by the Reibrcncc Court in thesO r0attcrs on account of the afoi'esaid locational advantagc j:)rcr'iding a higher building potehtjafl ty in the ac]u i red lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, i;hese appeals are partly allowed to the extent qI awarding I 0% increase over and above the market value aSsesSed by the Reference Court in matters pe.rllaiiing to . VU i.age B.harthai and VU hige Bij wasan. Wh.iio treating the appellants of Village Po.chanpur at par Wi

1.le appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Buwasan, the appeals or 1,A.Apo. No. 119S/2008 & cor,neLed Ap pea Is of ViINge 13,hor1hiI LA.Aop. No. 291/2010 & cornecled AppeIs of Vi!Ige Bijwson . . . LA.App. No ......t/2QO cor.reced Appool of Viflage l'oci,aopur . Page 2S 01 2P the appellatits of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three Villages in question is determined @ 16,50,000/ perfor the Categôiî 'A' land and 1 4,69,600/ per ba for the Categoiy'B' lands in qucston 1\ h

¶41On the aihj'esajd enhancement in the Compensation awarded, statutoiv henejits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOi 2001 (93) DLT 569 are

granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, 1r which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. lhese appellants would be entitled to proportionate ëosts.

¶42The above captioned appeals and cross-ohjrt - uipos of in the atoresajd terms with direction to the Registry to remit the COfl1pCflSitjü amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the Concerned Reference Coup. I)ecrce sheets he accordinJy prepared. (StJNJL GAUR) January 06, 2012 JUJ)GE pId LA.App. No. li9!0008 &

A App N Connected Appeak of ViflapE? 13harthal A App. N o. 294/2010 & conncctcd Appea of Vivage oijw I o. 1.1.1/7010 N conn(ctod Appe-11S of Village Pochanpr Page 29 0129 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Arnit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N. S .4egi and Mr.H. S .Rautela, Advocate Mr. S .K.Rout, Mr.B .K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tornar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tornar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INI)IA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.KaurnudiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Arnita Singh, MrBankey Bihari Sharma, Mf.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: I HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M. Appi, No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6th January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical erior pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6th January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is al towed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary Corrections be carried out foth•with. In view, 4of the afoesaid.; this application stands disposed of. - MLGAUI) JUDGE JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb I ( LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on. November1., 20]] Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 ± LA.APP. 901/2008 AZAD SINGH & ORS. Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates: Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.ROut and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananj ay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S .Rautela, Advocate Mr.I. S.Dahiya, Advocate, Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UTON OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate forDDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR