Lt Col Js Ahluwalia Decd Thr Lrs v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

22.05.2012 CM No. 8757/2012 (u/S 151 CPC) Condonation of delay of 154 days' delay in re-filing the accompanying appeal is sought by this application. Notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively and state that the only opposition to this application is that for the period of delay, the appellant ought not be granted the interest on the compensation amount in the event of it being enhanced. For the reasons stated in of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the counsel for the appellant, delay in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned, as the delay stands sufficiently explained. It is made clear that for the period of delay, appellant shall LA.APPN0.163/2012 Page 1 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. not be entitled to interest in the event of succeeding in appeal. This application is disposed of with aforesaid observations. CM No. 8754/2012 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act) Notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively and state that in the event of appellant succeeding in appeal, interest for the period of delay be not granted to the appellant. Since the reasons put-forth in the application for the delay occasioned are found to be sufficient, therefore, delay of 87 days' in filing the appeal is condoned while making it clear that for the period of delay, appellant shall not be entitled to interest in the event of it being enhanced. Application is disposed of. CM No. 8756/2012 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act) Notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively. The reasons put-forth for delay in filing the accompanying application under Order 22 Rule 3 nw Section 151 CPC for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased appellant are similar as mentioned in CM No. 8757/20 12. On the parity of reasoning, as observed in the aforesaid application i.e. CM No. 8757/20 12, this application is allowed and is accordingly disposed of. CM No. 8755/2012 (u/O 22 R 3 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) The factum of appellant having left this world on 3rd February, 2010 is supported with the Death Certificate of the appellant and it is LA.APPNo. 16312012 Page 2 stated that there are no other legal heirs of deceased appellant except the one mentioned in paragraph no.2 of the instant application. Notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and legal heirs of deceased appellant, as mentioned in paragraph no.2 of the Ap application, are brought on record. This application is disposed of in aforesaid terms. LA.APP. 163/2012 The instant appeal relates to Village —Pochanpur, where vide Notification of 13h December, 2000, land of the appellant stood acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-UOI, states that the fate of this appeal stands determined by the decision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008 'Ranbir Sharma Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr.' rendered on 6th January, 2012. Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that case of the appellant is at par with Ranbir Sharma (Supra). In the light of above, this appeal is allowed in terms of decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra), with statutory benefits and proportionate costs, while declining interest for the period of delay. This appeal stands disposed of in aforesai . (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAY 229 2012 rs LA.APPNO. 16312012 Page 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NW DELHI Lnj_Qfl:i/qvemberL 29ii (GRID-A) LA.APP. 1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANB1R SHARI\4A .. ... Appellant Through: Mr.B .S.Maan, Mr.Arnit Maafl, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms. Smita Maan Mr.R. S .Verrna, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and MsAnita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Ath'ocate Mr.N .S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Raijtela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B .K.Ro&ray, Mr.M, Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepa] Khosia. Mr.Sarnit Khosla and Mr.Dhananj ay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.i.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocte Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N .S.Negi and Mr.H. S .Raite1a, (Advocates fr respondent in appeals fi1e b1 UO.1) versus I JNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjav Podclar, Senior Adrocate with Mr.Sanjay Patha.k, Mr.Mohitrao adhav and Ms.Naviin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocktes for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashkw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kuinar, Mr. S .1K. Sethi, Mr.Pa\an 1\4athur, Mr,Kuna] Sharrna. Advocate fbr DDA LA.APP.41 2/2O0 &. CM.No.4096/2008 (CrGs'-Q1jcctions); LA.APP.452/2008; L.APP.453/2008; LA.APP.688/2008 & CM.No.5990/2010 (Cioss-Objeciions): LA.APP.697/2008 & CM. No.433/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.70I/200 & CM.No.5 10/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008: i.AAp1). No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 4App. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasn '\.App. No. :L1/201O & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 1 ol Z'J S C S 1,A.APP.771 /2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-O:bjetions): LA.APP.774/2003 & CM.No.6 11/2009 (Cross-Qbjectjons) LA.APP.77/2008• LA.App.776/2008 LA.APP.777/2008 LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.90/2009 (Cross-Objectjons)• LA.APp.783/2008 LA.APP.784/2008 LA.APP.785/008 1,A.APP.798/2008 & CM No.6 15/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA..APP,. 799/2p08 & CM.No .931/2009 (CrossObjections): LA.APP.805/2008 LA.APP.806/2008 LA.APP.8 13/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections). LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections) 1,A.APP.8 18/2008; LA.APP.8 1 /2008; 1,A.APP.820/2008; LA.App.829/2008• LA.APP.830/2008• LA.APP.832/2008• LA.APP.833/2008 1,A.APP.844/2008 LA.APP.845/2008 LA.App.873/2008 & CM.No.779/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App.899/2008• LA.APP.901/2008 LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.95 1/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections)• LA.ApP.959y2008• LA.APP.973/2008 .1.,A.APP.974/2008 &. CV[.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008 LA.APP,978/2008• LA.App.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.App 993/2008 ;LA. APP. 1 O29/208& CM.No. 17340/2008 Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 103 1/2008 & CM.No. . 73 5/2008 (Cros-Ohj ections); LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-01)jections)• LA.APP. 1046/2008; LA.APP. I 047/2008;LA.App 1048/2008& CMNo.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1 050/2008; LAAPP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objdctions)LA APP 1052/2008; LA.APP. 1 053/2008 & CM.No.41 6/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.App 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 055/008;LA APP 1057/2008 & CM.No752/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.App.105-8/2008& CM.No.1557/701 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 729/2OO8(Cross-Objectiotis) LA.APP. 1 O60/20O8;LA.pp 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Object':(i) LA.APP, 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.N6.62/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APp.1075/2008 LA.App.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(CrossQhjectjJls); i.A..APP. 1 084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 08/2008& CM.No.61 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP. 1093/2008; A.APP. 1 04/2OO8; LA.APP. 1095/2008; LA.APp.1 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 111 09/2(08; LA.APP. 1110/2008 & CM.No3 828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App.1i I 1/208; LA.APP. 1112/2008 & CM,No.383 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1.11 3/208 & CM.No.3826/209 (Cross-Objections) ; LA.APP.I 115/2008; LA,APP.1 1 16/008; LA.APP.1 121/2008; LAAPP.1 126/2008; LA.APP. 1129/2008 &. CM.No550/2009 (Cross-Objectioit LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 & CM.No566/2009 (Cross.Objections) LA.APP.1133/7008; LA.App.1135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); I LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Qbjectons); LA.APP. 1140/2008; LA APP 1156/2008; LA.App.i 157/2008; LA. .APP.i 158/2OO8 & CM.No.7774/7999 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1159/2008; L.A.APP.i 161/2008; LA.APP. 1166/2008; LA.APP,.i 167/2008 & CM.No. 802/2009 .(CrossObjectibfls); 1A.APP.1 168/2008; LA.App.1 170/2008; LA.APP. 1171/2008; LA.APP. 1 12/2008 LA.App.l 173/2008; 1,.A.AIDP] 175/2008 LA.App1 178/2008; LA.APP.1 179/2008: LA.APP, 1181/2008; .[..A.App 1182/2008 1,A.App.1 183/2008& CM.Nb.6312009 (Cross-(i)hject;ans). LA APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP 1185/2008; LA.APP 11 86/008& CM.No.70 1 3/2009 A.!p1 No. 1 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal .A.Acp. No. 294/20Ifl & connecled Appeals of Village Bjwasan ; LA.App. Nc. .1 11,12010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochaiipur Pafle 2 of 2. 1/2008; 1,A.App1192/2008. 5/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; tions); LA.APP. 1200/2008; 0/2008; LA.App.121 1/2008; /2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& LA.APP. 124 1/2008& /2008; LA.APP.1252/2008; 7/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; 3/2008; LA.APP1284/2008 /2009; LA.APP.39/2009 ctions); LA.APP.59/2009 ections); LA.APP.74/2009 3/2011 (CrosS-Objections); /2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; /2009; LA.APP139/2009; /2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; 12009; LA.APp.191/2009 '2009; LA.APP 201/2009; 09 & CM.No.7027/2009 D/201 I (Cross-Objections); '2009; LA.APP.223/2009. 09 & CM,No.7206/2009 '2009; LA.APP.246/2009 2009; LA.ApP.305/2009. 2009; LA.APp.438/7009. 2009; LA.APP 481/7009 2009; LA.App.493/7009. 2009; LA.ApP.506/2009

1,A.APP.5 10/2009: 1009; LA.APP.567/2009• 1010; 1,A.APP48/2010 008; LA.APP, 1176/2008; 13417 dated 13.12.2000 t, 1894 & Award No. hi) S . . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,I 190/2008; LA.App.:1 19 LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.App,1 LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.N0.6935/2009(Cross..Obje LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 121 LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP. 122 CM.No.6957/2009(Cross,.Obj ections); LA.APP. 1 2,26/ CM.No. 3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 24 LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APPj 27 LA.App. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.App.128 LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.App.37 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/201 1 (Cross-Obj LA.App.73/2009 & CM.NO.7103/2009 (Cross-0b1 LA.ApP79/2009. LA.App.95/2009 & CM.N.95 LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APPI,1 21 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APPh 38 LA.APp. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP144 LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 190 L,A.APp. 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 199 LA.App202/2009 LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APp.2O/2( (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2 10/2009 & CM.No .97 LA.APP2I 1/2009; LA.APP 220/2009; LA.App.222, LA .APP.224/2009• LA.APP.227/2009; LA.App.23 0/2C (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.App.245, LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009 LA.APp,295, LA.APp.367/2009 LA.App.43 7/2009; 1,A.APp,447, LA.APP.459/2009 LA.APP.466/2009; LA.App.480i LA.App.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.AP1.49 1 / LA.APp.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/ LA. APP.507/2009• LA.APP.508/2009 LA.App.509/ LA. APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP.512/2009 LA.App.513/ LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.App.45/ LA.App.404/20 10; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP. 1138/2 LA.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP.'l 201/2008 LA.APP.23,'2C (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA issued under . Section 4 of the Land Acquisition A 26"2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002. Village Bharthal, Dc (GRID-B) on: Ijeceinber 08, 2011 ci on: Janua 06, 2012 LA .APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BIJWASAN) !..)EVE.NDER KUIVLAR Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tornar, Mr.irendi-a Singh Ii\.App No. 11.35,'2003 & connected Appeais of Village Bharthal A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L'.App. No J .'.1,'2010 & corinectt'd Appeals of Village Pochanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Rou/raJ, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Pcdd.r, Senior Advocate with Mr. S anj ay Kümr Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOi/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki 1tnd Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R.-68, 71 & 72 in appeal flled by UOI S. Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma. Sharma and Mr.orner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.AP. 9/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.AP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 77/20l0 L.A.APP. 2 81/2 010 [,AApp 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP.284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010. LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.AP. 289i2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 L.A.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.AP.P. 352/20:10 LA.APP. 353/2010 L.A,APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.AP?. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LAAPP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 32/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 58/201 0 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.A.PP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 7i/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP, 759/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 964/201.0 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 34/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 9/2010 & LA.APP. 75/20.10 & C:M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objectins) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/Li/13417 dated 1.3.12.200() issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition ict, 1894 & Award No. 28/2.002-2003: Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND I A.App, No. :1195/2003 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal iA.App. No 29.4/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan s.App. No. :i I 12010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanour Pege 4 of 29 . (GRID-C) LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.B.D. S1rn ara, Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout, Adyocates for appellant (in R-16,20, 23 to 2 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 7J) Mr.S.B. Kumar, 4dvocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 6.1, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh YaavI Advocate for appellant inR-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanj ay KumarPathak, Mr.Mohjtrao Jadhav, and Ms.Nàvljn Swain, Advbcates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharm a and Mr. S drner K.S eth. Advocates for DDA. Ll LA.APP. 111/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 254i'2010 L.A.APP. 292/2010 LA.APP. 307/2010 LA.APP. 395/2010 LA.APP. 420/2010 LA.APP. 466/2010 I...A.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010 LA.APP. 919/2010 LA.APP. 65112011 LA.APp. 120/2011 LA.APP. 476/2011 LA.APp. 523/2011 LA.APP. 536/2011 LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.APp. 165/2010 LA.APP, 248/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 317/2010 LAAPP. 396/2010 LA.APP. 432/2010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 639/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LA.APP. 1052/2010 LA.APP. 116/2011 LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 485/2011 LA.APP. 525/2011 LA.APP. 554/20 1 1 LAAPP. 15/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.APP. 29/2010 LAAPP. 21/2010 LA..APP. 395/2() 10 LA.APP. 392/2010 LA.AP. 37/2010 LA.APF. .43/201O LA.APP.. 5t7/201 0 LA.APP, 640/2010 LA.APP. 741/2010 LA.APP. 74/2010 LA.APL 61/2011 LA.APP'. 1 17/20 1 1 LA.APF, 129/2011 LA.APP. 521/201 1 LA..APP.526/20I1

1.A.APp 591/201 1 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP. 215/201 0 . LA.APP. 250/2010 LA.APP. 270/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010' LA.APP. 393/2010 LA.APP. 412/2010 L.A.APP. 434/2010 LA.APP. 635/20 I() LA.APP, 657/20 0 LA.APP. 758/2010 LA.APP, 918/2010 LA.APP. 64/2011 LA.APP. 119/20]1 LA.APP. 429/2011 LA.APP. 522/2011 LA.APP. 535/2011 lJ\./pp. No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal [A.App. No. 2.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.I\./\pp. No. 111/2010 & connect€d Appeas ef Village Pochanpur Pages of 29 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)(96-L B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land cquisition Act, 1894 .& Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, \iill ge Pochanpur, Delhi) co .HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 0/ )

06.01.2012 Since, the grounds on which enhancement sought by the appellants in these bunch of • therefore with the consent of learned counsel fc the hearing of these appeals, these bunëh of Notification No.F. 10(3Q)96-L& B11LA11341 7 dat to geographically . contiguous Villages Bh Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common Acquisition process for planned deveiopm IJ' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance ( December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land pertaining to vast tract of agricultural lan( i comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates includ.ir i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Póchanpur. of the compensation is appeals are identical, the parties present at appeals pertaining to 1 13.12.2000, relating thal, Bijwasan and of 'Dwarka Phase-Notification of 13th (l' 1SLiofl i- .ct, 1 894, one compact block villages in question, Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide 1hree separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/002-2003;and Award No.30/2002..2003 granting compensation @ 1.82 lacsper acre for l3lock 'A' (level field -. with top soil) and @ 12.32 lacs per acre for Block '13' (without top soil). Dissatisfied with the assessment of market 6lue of their acquired LA.App, No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VHIage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan li\.App. No. :111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur , .., . agricultural lands, appellants had sought H èreLe under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Refereice Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ i5.pO

lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

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

(2010) . 1.3 SCC 710; Subh Rain and Qrs vs. State of Haryana and Anr,,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Dead) thrnigh LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LundAcquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 JSCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 Sc 346+; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs i's. The Special Land Acq4 ition Officer, Jaigaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lal vs. Union of Inlia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Raina Nand (since deceased) through LRs Vs. frnion of India & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ I (DB); (Idiw Dass vs. Stht of Hwyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; C'hakas i's. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. Std::?e bfMàharashtra, (2009) I I SCC 171; Alma Sing/i (Dead) through IL.Js and Ors i's. State of Harvana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) 1INo. 4143/2003 titled as Sint. Indu Kijorana vs. Gram Sabha &Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special LandAcquisition Officer & Anr vs,M4K. .Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC. 714; Thakarsibhaj Devjibhai and ors is. Executive Engineer, IA.Apo No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal lJ\.App. Ne. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L}\.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Hiryana State Industrial Development corporation, (2010)11 sec 175 Risal Sing/i & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) IDRJ 527 :(D); Lal chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 5CC 769; Gei'eral Manager, Oil and Natural Gas corporation Ltd vs. Rames/bhai Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; J/aiiiyammal and Air vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition,) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 937; Kiran Tandon vs. Aliahabàd Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh .Daltatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharabtra, AIR. 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Me/ira (Major General) & Ors. V. Union of india & Anr, S 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 litled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of h'dia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) il SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Rum vs. Union of India, decided on 07.06.2011 and Bhule Rum vs. Union of India. 2010

(170) DLT 371. On. the strength of the aforesaid decisiorks, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned arguin. curise1 for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired aricultura1. land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its ptentiaI which must he adjudged keeping in view the development ih the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the netr future alone. It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tornar, coinsel for appellants that I)elhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage railway Iin of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, di'iding it into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IGI Aio, New Delhi LA/pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A.App. No. 29/2010 & connected Anneals of Villpn Biiwasan

.A..pp. No. 3.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur S and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Mi City Part-I and Part-TI again divides the a portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI A South Eastern side, where developed Farm I-I land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Same out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the part of the land of Village Bharthal was first a leurn and a road 100 i towards Dwarka Sub-icultural land into two rt is located; and (ii) es are located on the It was also pointed ellants that northern uired for the extension of IG1 Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafterin he year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal ar ,dj Village PoOhanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for develo pmeni of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phas-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the a/cs sizras/map tohihlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpu.r and \iTiiiage Dhool Siras are contiguous. I It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maani learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be aricultural in spite of Notification of 1 6 October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from, agriulturaI to residential/ comrnercia1/jndustijaJ etc. and infact the entire 1ncl of Village Bharthal had ceased to be mral in view of the Notificatin i of 24' October, 1994. It was argued with much vehernence b Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two otifications have been wrongly discarded by the Refeienc Court ly -elying upon P. Ranui I.4.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No, 29/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L".App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyd H rabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass i's. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmeit in the area ove - a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future a1one 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. Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, iarned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Jochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from Z5 2 lacs to Z62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Refrence Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exeiplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as pef setled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu D el vs. State f Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale ~xemplars ought to he taken as representing the market price of the lanc which comes to Z37 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied pon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, •therefore, re' ian.ce placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circie.rats for determining the market value of the acquired land is patently err5nous. Assessment of market value of the acquiredi land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants o the basis of the L& 1)0 rates fixed by the Government and alsu on. the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the Government for a1lotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the lcation, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is LAApp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA./\pp. No. 294 12010 & connected.Appeal5 of Village Bijwasan LAApp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Puge 10 of 29 H sought On the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samal.kha or alternatively on the basis of L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In.the written synopsis, appellant - Impule India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- "Ignores the acknowledgement on he part of the respondent about the Award No.26/002-2003 dated

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

7.7.2007) Does not account for the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely aected the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years befbrel the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquii s:tion Act, 1894 was issued. Valuing the land on the basis cof he letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the Government.of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance With the law laid down by various decisions including in one of the more • recent decisions of the Hon'ble SuRreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(3,) 5CC 661, Ignores the evidence and other factois which as per established law has to be considered beibre ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition. Does not deal with disparity in valu oj the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court H)herea as the law per established by the I-Ion 'b/e Supreme Coirt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Paul versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil. Apeal No. 545 of 2007. The I-Ion 'bie Supreme Court has specyica'llyl held that Sale Deed showing higher rate should not b disregarded in A App. No, 1195/2008 & coflnected Appeals of Village 13harthal u\.Aop. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village 3ijwasari i'.App. No. 1 . [ 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocatpur

¶1H case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana • Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, '2O1013) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation uponj a certan land. Relied upon judgment dated 3..2008 in LAC No..97A/2006 to decide the market vclue of the subject land while ignoring the material whic'i indicate that the market value of the land is much highr than 15 lac per acre in Block A and Z13,36,000 in Bpck B in violation of, the law laid down by ' the Hoi 'bi'e Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. Stateof Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the inpugned judgment refused to .return an actual finding on the issue A 0.1 'framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural lind although vide ATQtflcation of the Municioal Corportion of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras' a)zd Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to bd agricultural and came, now under the urban boundaris of Delhi State. The masterplan and IVoqfications oJ Government for land use change show that in futtre land can be subjected to residential, commnerial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in respect of th 74th amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue (?f which the Municipal , Crpration Act was amended and the area where the lana is situated, was deemed a municipal area and the n'iunkcial Counsellor was elected from there. No Panchaykt elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid don iin AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs Union of India and refused to consider the fact that th development in the area has a direct effect on the prie that a willing purchaser would pay for the subjest 'anl. Ignored the fact that Respondent 1''o. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lI\.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur S auctioned similarly situated land as 4ommercial blocks at the rate of about 2. 6 la/c/i and cbncluded that the said land is wholly underdevelopedanc/ The valuation of the subject land i evii lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by, i?espondent No. 2 Jr similarly situated land. Does not take into account theposibllity of change of the use qf the land although the land vas acquired for development purposes of Dwarka rhase IL it is reiterated that the land use of ViJlage Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these arezs ceased to be agricultural and ca/ne now under the i4rban boundaries of Delhi State. 1) Ignored Notcations dated 16. 10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish tIie commercial potentiality of the said land, in Sangunt/jzala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held That the purpose for which land is acquired is a releant factor. While determining value of the property acuired the jdci whether the land has got building poten 1ial ity to be used for building purposes in immediate on in near jture needs to be considered . S in) The presence of a number of buildingon the lands acquired and the •said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house stes. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting I up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is beink considered as house site, the adjoining lands have t1e potential of being put in better use as house sites ih. th near future."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and thrs of LA. Anh. No 347/2009 the factual details have been provided ith a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at iar with The co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. .14. Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advaced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr,Anand Yadav Adioate that the effect of IJ\.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal .A.App. No. 294/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur urbanization of the lands in the Villages in quetion, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Datta fray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashira, AIR. 2009 SC 2.238; Kapil Me'ira (Major General) & Ors. Vc. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) pLT 361 and that Pre-1)etermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of The area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired laids and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are coi prable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, en1ianceiient of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

1.5. Arguing the cross-objections filed by tho,Rspondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar. learned Senior counsel urged that thougli as per Section 5 1.-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of' the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot he takn as relevant evidence for determination of the market value unles and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, ature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illgally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upoi Th e decisions in Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DR.J 227, Satpal 1& Ors vs. Union ?f India, (1997) .11 5CC 423; La! ('hand vs. Unith', of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 tiied as Sushjl Kuniar vs. Union of India, decided on 26;09.2011, it was :urged that sharp increase in price in a shdrt period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharpincrease are explained by producing i 1n evidence the seller LA./pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Oijwasan lJ\.App. No. 11.1/2010& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur iJ A S /7 and the purchaser as no prudent person havmg knowledge of the usual irevalnt trend in the market would pay such a liigher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Bas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thu, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoptiOn of L& 1)0 rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in iview of the decision of Apex Court in La! Ghand (supra) which hs been followed by, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kuna!r (sujra) and Raj Sing/i (supra). So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by • Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the RespQndents/cross-objectors that the same has already been factord into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1st April, 2000 and by granting appreciatin thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in . Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granthd. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement fr9rn the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Co1l?ct4r and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deletingi tle enhancement by the Reference Court while taking into consideration the appreciation (0i, 1 2% per annum and the same deserves to be brogh in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per ,annum. and •therebi allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. After considering the rival submissions ladvanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned ju4gment, the evidence on record and thedecisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid by wiiiin purchaser to a willing LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.Aop. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village PochanpOr : Poge 15 of 29 S seller and the best evidence is the compara e sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the rnàrkt value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass 'i's. State of Haryana & Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- the situation of the acquired land vks-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial indusrjal, educational, religious or any other kind of ir4ortance or because of its explosive population; S, (ii) the suitability of the acquired land for buildings, be they residential, putting tp the commercIal or industrial, as the case may be; ON possibility of obtaining watej ad e lectric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land,

(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired landfor building purpose; tv) existence, of highways, public rads, layouts of building plots or developed resiclenhal extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the icquired lancl, (vz,) benefits or advantages of educatinai institutions, health care centres, or the like in the srrounding areas of the acquired land whih may become available to the occupiers of buildins, if built on the acquired land, and

(vii) lands around the acquired land o the acquired land itself being in demand for buiidirg purposes, to specift a few." .18. The potentiality of land for the purpose of dwelopment as also for building purpoes depends upon a large numbr f fhctors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear' in mind the purpose ffir 1J\.App. No. 1195/2003 & connected Appeais of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan lA.App No. 11112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur-Paf(:• IC of which the lands were sought to be acquired also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so obse,;I, .-ved by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Alma Sing/i (supra) that the exemplars of, snliall 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.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reitetated by th Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K Rafq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where therd is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of he villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the COmpensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquiied land.

¶20It is a well established proposition ô Lw that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired lahd is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inacequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this prop,ostio-i, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be rfered to with advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated• in cloe 3'icinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc.,., iad held that deduction of 40o/ towards development . charges was irnroper. The pertinent observations made by theApex Court in AnjaniMoiu Desai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- IAJpp No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.App, No. 194/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan [.A.App No 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 170129 there are several nds, usually the fide transaction, are several sales rrow bandwidth, representing the ?sed in respect of only lead to an issimilar lands or f under-valuation uently averaging "The legal position is that even where exemplars with reference to similar highest of the exemplars, which is a ban1 will be considered. Where however thre of similar lands whose prices range in a the average thereof can be taken, as market price. But whee the values discl two sales are markedly different, it car inference that they are with reference to that the lower value sale is on account or other price depressing reasons. Conse cannot be resorted to. S It would he worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rte of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Ghindha Fakira Piti (Supra), which are as follows: - "It is well settled that genuine and bona Jlde sale transactions in respect of the land i:ei' acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands pssessing similar value or utility taken place between t willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be epeFted to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasoniible prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value." Principles to determine the market value lof the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natur4i Gas Corporation Ltd. (QJ\TGc) (Supra), are as under:- "Primaril);, the increase in land prices 1 depends on jour factors - situation of the land, nature off development in surrounding area, availability of land, fcr development in the area, and the demand for land i t,ie area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of, d1velopmeni in the vicinity; increase in prices would be 'low, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts orjumjps. A.App. No. I I 9/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthai LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IAApp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur S On the other hand, in urban or semi-urba development is faster, where the deman(, and where there is construction activit escalatin in market price is at a mu compared to rural areas. In some pockèt to rapid development and high dëna escalations in prices have touched vei more per year, during the nineties. On th remote rural areas where there was development and hardly any buyers, th for years or rose marginally at a nomnal per annum. There is thus a sign flc increases in market value of lands in areas and increases in market value of areas. Therefore if the increase in urban/semi-urban areas is about 109' te the corresponding increases in rural area only around half of it, that is about 5 0//0 te This rule of thumb refers to the gent ninties, to be adopted in the absence of evidence relating to increase in prices. special reasons for applying a higher r any specific evidence relating to the o prices, then the increase to be applied w the same. z areas, where the ifor land is high v all around, the ii higher rate, as in big cities, due id for land, the 30% to 50% or other extreme, in o chance of an)) prices stagnated rate of 1% or 2 010 nt difference in urba n/semi-urban ands in the rvirai market value, in 15% per annum, s would at best be

7.5% per annum. ral trend in the clear and specific Where there are te of increase, or ctual increase in uld depend upon Normally, recourse is taken to the mode f determining the market value by providing appropriat ecalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in jrevious years (as evidenced by sale transactions or .acquisiion), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sle transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the n1ighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the 4bject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto jur to Jve years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become . unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, fop-determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with referènce to a sale or .f.App. No. .1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Rharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LApp No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 19 of29 • H acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have iay pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the I 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic chan -e apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying period of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increcise." This Court is mindful of the dictum of the A j pex Court in Haiyana State Industrial Development corporation (1,TS1D (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquird lands by adopting comparative sales methods. What was said byth, Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- • "When different categories of lands (or laids with different situational advantages) are acquired for the same purpose, say for forming of a residential lcyoit, courts have sometimes felt that determination oj tleir value with reference to previous status or situatioh sl'ould be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation shoul4 be awarded for all lands acquired under the same noqficatin. Undisputedly, in these appeals sale ceinplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Vi1lage ijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sak eemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pocharipu, i.e., the seven Sale S Deeds vide. which religious institution, i.e., .adh Swami kSatsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village ~)ochanpur at a price which varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4 o Ex.PW-i/j 0) which are basically between one set of co-owners and iadha Swami Satsang, i3eas in respect of the compact block of land :rneasring 18 Bighas and 6 .i3iswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the crrect market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot qestion which is required 110 be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exenpars, i.e., Sale Deeds L4.App. No 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal L/.App. No. 294/20:10 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010 & co,lnectecj Appeals of Village Poclianpur (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate thatits pice varies from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon tle nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exeniplrs with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemp1ars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acqufred lands in questioi. The special need of the purchaser of these agcutural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ix.W-l/1O) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these aricu]tura1 land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had th urchaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examiñed, tFen it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed:to pa such a high price for these lands.. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Raciha Swami Salsang, Beas who had purchased more than 3 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide SleDeed executed on 25th March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App.No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23 .8.±0l I and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Uhin f' India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sal exemplar of Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that , the same cannot be treated as representati\Je price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land e of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, bui ithas come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for aricuftural purpose till their acquisjtjoii Thud, it becomes evident that the acuired lands were not developed lands. No prud.ent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App No. 195/2008 & connected Appeals of VUIage 13harthal J'.Apo No. 294/2010 & connOcted Appeals of Village Bijwa5an A.App. No. ii 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochahpur market price of the land in question would pay uch a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special conideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale er1emplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been iigbtly discarded by the Reference Court. So •far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, discicsing exorbitant price of l,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed c,lf27t1.January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/1 1) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and bcause vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-l/1l) vendor had sold not only the land but the:strueture thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, b etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view therof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question. Left with no sale exemplars disclosing relistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates fdr tl1ie developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to he adopted to determine the true market value. of the acquired lands in question. Parameters governing fixation of market alue of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reporte4 as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad, Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '.12. However, in either of the said cases ;hether it be the determination qf the market value of the acjuired land with building potentiality with reference to the p1rice fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed layout in t?e neghborhood (.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan . l.A.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

. I () or whether it be the determination of the nL rket value of the acquired lana' with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots n an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighbor!hood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales ofplts in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with refebence to the price which the plots could have fetched f sold rn the date of the publication of the preliminary not?cation under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidnc ofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of uiding plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands ,bebomes available, then what could be done is to find out th market value 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 and i2cease its value by a small percentage having regard tc the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the bais of evidence to he made available in that regard. A sn all percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 115h of the market value of the landfound out accordin to its actual user Since resort to the method of giving inciased value for such building potentiality arises only wlen there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the 1eighborI?ood of the acquired land indicating that there wc4s no immediate demand, as such, for building plots even iformed in the acquired land." .31. In view of the difficulties in adoption of rte of land charged by the I)DA after acquiring the agricultural lands, desveloping the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisab1etr( ratcs/pre_Determined Rates in determining the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Followin hand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court and Sushi! Kumar (Supra) has excluded the

developed lands as being not relevant for assesin LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 113/2010 & connected Pppeals of Village Pochanpur Page 23 of29 upon the allotment value of the the dictum of Lal Jai Singh (Supra) DA rates qua the the market value of the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for al1otnient of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Determjned Rates fof alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whetLer progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing Ithe market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villtges for development of Dwarka. Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cros-bjector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 10/0 per anurn is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Plase-I and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-Il, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than t1e foresaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), cautiOnitg the Courts to adopt I progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years land.beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable, standard, if the gap is of only of a fe,w ye4rs, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. in the instant case, the gap betvcen the two Notifications, i.e., of DwatlLa Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-Il is of sixteen years and therefore, it woulc be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by roviding appropriate LA.App. No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur escalation over the market value of the nearby lnd of the previous years. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senioi counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that th Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, whidh is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kun'ar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increae on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been grnted and so, by relying upon Sushi! Kurnar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court @ 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed. Now •what is to be seen is whether adption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhij by the Reference Coui is reasonable criteria for determining the rnrkt value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% pr annum granted b the Reference Court from the date of fixation of th minimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. 1st A0ri1, 2000 till the date of - Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not. I Adoption of Government's minimum raes of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the, adqured land had ceased to be an agricultural land by virtue of Notificatior of 24th October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villges in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Notificatiop of the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to I.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal t.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan

1.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur I' H presume that the acquired lands had gaine4 potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence id 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 theiplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appell nts disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidenbe on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of *the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultutal use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand, on acoünt of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use pot the year 1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other sjaie instances in the area in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-l/i 1) without leading any evidence to establish that.the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur, anl the sale exemplar of Village Samalltha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land wih the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/1 1) cannot be tijeated to be sufficient • ground to grant higher compensation while 1ying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afre-referred dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Dev1opment Gorporation (HSIDC) (Supra), uniform rate of compensation &serves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificaton in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Government for th11 agricultural land in 1)elhi, which •generally factors in the rise ofj price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there i a gap between what IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & onnected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & conncted Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur c9 would be expected to be the market growth actually grown, Government's 1inimum agrici to be reasonable basis for assessing the niar lands in Jai Sing/i (Sipra) as well as in Sushil no reason to take a different view than the one coordinate Bench of this Court in the afore (Supra) and SushulKumar (Supra). Tid what the market had price has been held t value of the acquired umar (Supra) and I find hich had been taken by Lid cases of Jai Singh the Reference Court in Village Bijwasan has 1 price for agricultural aired lands in question. e Bharthal and Village ential and the situation is borne out from the gher potentiality of the ort, Indian Oil and through Village

¶38This Court is of the considered view th the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal ar rightly relied upon the Government's miniiu lands in I)elhi to fix the market value of the ac Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Viii Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the n starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm I-louses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow fussed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of ths Court, on account of aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lancs in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in' vicinty of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase ver and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the LA.App. No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur of the acquired lands is similar to sale exem.'la evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of I acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway lire I Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide rc 1: I. 15) settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached ti'at there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near futurej such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acqired land had a building potentiality and proceed to det9rmine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."

¶39Considering the fact that it would be verb' 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 compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which peilsuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniforffily applying the G overnment's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special featurs to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Vi11ae Pchanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants off Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying uponthe decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determinedby the Reference Court in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acqi 1iired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly alhjwed to the extent of awarding 10% increase over and above the matke value assessed by the Reference Qourt in matters pertaining to Vi1lag Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Vil1ge Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijjwasan, the appeals of LA.App No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal tA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur 7-1111 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of:,t'hel aéquired lands of these three villages in question is determined @ i6,O,OOO/- peçbi.gh for the Category A' land and @ 14,69,600/- per bhfor the Category 'B' lands in question.

On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Xct, 1894 as explained in the judgrnert reported in Sunder vs. UOI 201 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhakced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to prportionate costs. The above captioned appeals and cros-o1jections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by eithek side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Referene Court. Decree sheets be accordThgly prepared. — (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE January 06, 2012 p1< b t ( LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal .A.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur NEW DELHI Appellant IVIr.Jai Prakash, a, Mr.Jitin /ocate tela, Advocate i, Advocates. tela, (Advocates for UOI) ate for i and Respondents ocate with o Jadhav and udi Kiran, Ms. Amita Singh, .Kunal Sharrna and 'or DDA. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT LA.APP, 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Ma Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Ve Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, A Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.flS.R Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routr Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.Ska respondent in appeals filed b Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Adv Mr.R. S .Tornar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K,So Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Ac Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohjt: Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kau Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.SetF Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR -1 Ion aRDER

12.01.2012 CM.jpjj 752/2012 (For correction) This is an application for seeking typographica1 correction in I Order of 6 th January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page :t of the application. Advance copy of this applic tion has already been giveili to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical elTor pointed out the respondent in the decision of 61h January, 2012 is that in pargraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensatjo asessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to, 'pr bigha' in paragraph i 7 no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. In view of the aforesaid, this application stnds disposed of (SUNIL GAUR) JANtJARy 12, 2012 JUDGE pkb LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 2

$6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 163/2012 LT COL JS AHLUWALIA (DECD) THR LRS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: Respondents Mr. S.K. Pathak, Advocate for R- 1/UOI Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for R- 2/DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR