Hari Chand & Ors v. U.O.I & Ors

ORDER

06.0t.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 119512008, titled as 'Ranbil' Sharnta vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JANUAR.Y 06,2012 pkb % IN THE IIIGH COURT OF DELI{I A.T NEW DEI-HI Ileserved ort: NoventbeJ:-i8' 201 L Prottounced on: Jcmuaryt A!-2UZ (GRID-A) r-LA.APP.1 195/2008 (VILLAGE-tsHART'H^4.I,) RANBIR SHARMA Through: tA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal Ln.App. No. 2g4l2OLO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan [n.App. No. L1.1/2OLO & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur -a {' ..... APPellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr'Jai Prakash, Ms'Snrita Maan, Mr'.R. S.Verma, Mr. Jitin Tew athi a, Adv ocates Mr.Airancl Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates' Mr.Rohtas, Advocate Mr.Itaghuviuder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi ancl Mr.H.S'Rautela, Advocate Mr'. S .I(.Rout and Mr.B .I(. Rotitray, Mr.M. Azam Ausari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Itajesh Yadar', Mr.Deepak I(hosla, Mr'Samit l{rosla and Mr'.Dhananj ay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H. S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Thal$ur, Advocate Mr.Atul "fripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr'H.S.Rautela, (r\dvocatcs fcrr respondent in appeals filed bY UOI) versus UNION OIT INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.sanjay Podclar, senior Advocate with Mr.sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao iadhav and Ms'Navlin Swain. Ms.K.I(aumudi ](iran, Advocates for LAC/IIOI Mr..{ay Vertna, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr'Mulicsh I(umar, Mr. S .K. S ethi, Mr.P awatl Mathr-rr, Mr' I(unal Sharma, Advocate for DDA Ln.app.+t 212008 & CM.No.409612008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.45212008'^ LA.App.45 312008; LA.App.688/2008 & cM.No.599012010 (cross-obiecli0ns); LA.App.697 12008 &. CM.No.433 12009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.7Oll200\ &' cM.No.510l200g (cross-objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770l200ti; Page 1of 2!) { LA.APP.77 rl2o08 & cM.No.425 12009 (cross-objections); LA'APP'77?/?!!8^; I o LA.App3732001 & CM.No.383 512009 (iross-objections); LA'APP'77412008 & | CM.No.61 Il210g (Cross-Objectiols); La.npp.ZZ512008; LA'APP'77612008; LA.App.t77 12008; Le.epp.z-g21200s sL cM.No.94012009 (cfoss-Objections); LA.APP.78 312008'; LA.APP.78 412008; LA'APP.78 512008; LA'APP'798/2008 &r' cM.No.615 12009 (closs-objections); LA.APP.7ggl2008 &, cM'No'93112009 (Cross-Objectiols); LA.APP.Sg5lZ00ig; LA.APP.8g612008; LA'APP'8i312008 8r CM.No.179 5l2OOg (C1oss-Objections)j LA.APP.81 412008 &' CM'No'80612001) (cross-objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.81912008; LA'APP'820/2008; LA.App.82 gtz00g: in.npp.s:0/2008; LA.APP'83212008; LA'APP'83312008; LA.APP.84 412008'; LA.APP.84 512008; LA.APP'87312008 &' cM'No'7791201r (Cross-obj"ctiorrsj;LA.APP.B92/209:8ffir9'::':9Piectiorrs); LA.App.89 g t2008: LA.App.gg t/2008( LA.APP.9 1 5/20081 )LA.APP'9s 1/2008 8{' ci',r.N'zir-g7z_0ol,1c,.o,s-objectiono@LA.APP.973l200ti; LA.App.97 412008 n cM.No.519 tiOOg (cr.oss-objectio's); LA.APP.975l200ti; LA.App.976t2O08; Le.app.qz8l2008; LA.APP.986l201s & CM'No'57212009 (Cross-objectiolsj;LA .APP.gg312008;LA.APP102912008&' CM'No'173 4012008 iCross-Obj".tiousj; LA.APP.I03112008 &. CM.No.1733512008 (Cross-Objectiorts); I,A.APP. 103212008 e cM.No.599l200g (cross-objections); LA'APP'I0461200t1; LA.APP.10 47/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.78 5ll2O09 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.10 4gt2008 & cM.No.420l20og (cross-objections); LA +!l 1950/2008; LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No.1726212008 (cfoss-objections);LA'APP'105212008; LA.APP.105312008 & CM.No.416l2}0g (cross-objections);LA.APP.10-54/2008 & cM.No.176 612009 (cfoss-objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA'APP'1057/2008 & CM.No.752 lz1tt icross-Objections); LA'APP.1058/2008& CM'No'155712011 (Cross-Objections); Ln.npp.i059/20ii8 & CM.No.1725912008(Cross-Objectio.sr); LA.AI)P.1060/2008;LA.APP.106212008 &, cM.No.54612009 (cross-objections;); LA.APP.1013/2008; LA.APP.I074l2O0'3 & cM.No.623l20O9 (cross-objectiorir;); LA.APP.101512008'; LA.APP.1081/2008 & cM.No.46212009(cross-objection:;); L.r\..APP.10 84/2008&. CM.No.173 0212008 (Closs-Objections); L{'A|-P-1086/2008 &. CM.No.244812008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.108712008& 'CM'No'61912009 (Cross-objections); ia.npp.t ogztzoog; A.API'}.109412008; LA'APP'1095/2008; LA.APP.1 103/2008 & cM.No. 44ll200g (cross-objections);LA.APP' 1 1 08/2008 & 'cvr.N".:-s zitioog (cross-objections); LA.APP' 1109/2008; !A All 1 r1"0t2008 &' CM.No.382 gt2009 (Cross-Objectio'sj; LA.APP.1111/2008; LA.APP.11l2l200tl 8L CM.No.383 tl200g iCtoss-Ot lectio's); LA.APP.1 1 13/2008 & CM'No'382612009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.i 1i5/20b8; LA.APP.1116/2008; LA'APP'1 l2ll2018: I-A.APP. 112612008; LA.APP. Il2gl200B & CM.No.55012009 (cross-obiections); LA.App. 1 1 30/20081 LA.APP. 1 1 3 1/2008 & CM.No.566 12009 (Cross-objections); LA.APP.1 13312008; LA.APP.1135/2008 & ^cM N9 ..7.44212009 (cross-objections); LA.APP. 113712008 & cM.No .1728312008 (cross-objections); LA.APP.1140/2008; . LA.APP.115612008; LA.APP J15112008; LA.APP'I1s8/2008 & cM'No '777412009 (cross-objections); LA.APP.1159/2008; LA.APP.1161/2008; LA'APP'1 16612008:, LA.APP.116712008&CM.No.80212009(Cross-Objections);LA'APP'1168/2008; LA.APP.l 170t2008; LA.APP.117ll2008; LA.APP.117212008; LA.APP.Il73l2008; LA.APP.1 17512008; LA.APP.1 17812008; LA.APP.1 17912008; LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.App.i t82t2008; LA.App.1183/2008& cM.No.693312009 (cross-obieclions); LA.Apt,. 1 t 84/20081 LA.APP. 1 1 85/2008; LA.APP. 1 1 86/2008& CM.No.70 1 3 12009 LA.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 2g4l21to & corinected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. I].ll2oto & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur t/ , rJ. (cross-objecrions); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l 19112008; LA.APP' ll92l200iJ: LA.APP.1193/2008; LA.APP.l 19412008; LA.APP.i 19512008; LA.APP.1l97l200t1:' LA.App. ttggt2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Closs-Objections); LA.APP'1200/2008; LA.APP. 1 2 0212008; LA.APP. 1 203/200 8 ; LA.APP. 1 2 1 0/2008 ; LA.APP. r2I I DA08; LA.APP.12 1212008;LA.APP.121312008;LA.APP.122312008; LA'APP.122512008',k' cM.No.695 712009(cross-objections);' LA.APP.122612008; LA.APP'124112008&' cM.No.384ll20og (cross-objections); LA.APP.124312008; LA.APP.125212008; LA.APP. 127512008; LA.APP.127612008; LA.APP.127712008; LA.APP.127912008; LA.APP. 128012008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA'APP.128412008; LA.APP.3ll2009; LA.APP.3312009; LA.APP.3712009; LA.APP'3912009; LA.APP.42l200g &. cM.No.746l20It (cross-objections); LA.APP.5912009:' LA.APP.73 l2}0g & cM.No.7103l2}0g (closs-objections); LA.APP.7412009; LA.App.79l200g; LA.App.gsl200g & cM.No.953l201l (cross-objections); I-A.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP.10 912009; LA.APP. 12112009; LA.APP.13 512009; LA.APP. 13612009; LA.APP.13712009; LA.APP.13812009; LA.APP.13912009; LA.APP. 14012009; LA.APP.143l20O9; LA.APP.14412009; LA.APP.14512009; I.A.APP.16212009; LA.APP.l 87 12009;, LA.APP.1 9012009; LA.APP.I 9112009; LA.APP. 19712009; LA.APP.19812009; LA.APP.19912009; LA'APP.20t12009; LA.APP.20212009; LA.APP.2O312009; LA.APP.20Sl2009 &' cM.No.7021 12009 (Cr.oss-Objections); LA.APP.2l012009 & CM.No.970l20II (Cross-Objections); la.npp.zl tt2009; LA.APP.22012009; LA.APP.22212009; L'A.APP.22312009; LA.APP.22412009; LA.APP.22712009; LA.APP.23012009 e cM.No.7206120a9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24I12009; LA.APP.24512009; LA'APP'24612009; LA.APP.249/20A9; T.A.APP.25712009; LA.APP,29512009; LA.APP.30512009; LA.APP.36 7 /2009; LA.APP.43.t 12009; LA.APP.44712009; LA.APP.4s 812009; LA.APP.45 912009; LA.APP.46612009; LA.APP.4B012009; LA.APP.48112009; LA.APP.4B912009;LA.APP.49012009;LA'APP'49112009;LA'AI']I''49312009:' LA.APP.49 412009; LA.APP.49 512009; LA.APP.50312009; LA.APP.50612009; LA.APP.s0 712009; LA.APP.s0 812009; LA.APP.50912009; LA.APP.s 1 0120(t9; LA.APP'5 I|12009; LA.APP.51 212009; LA.APP.5 |312009; LA.APP.567 l2a(|9; LA.APP.57212009; LA.APP.15l20I0; LA.APP.4512010; LA'APP'4812010; LA.APP.40 412010; I.A.APP.13 l20l|; LA.APP.1138/2008; LA'APP.1t76l2(t08; I.A.APP. I 17 7 12008 ; LA.APP. 1 20 1 /200 B ; LA.APP.23 | 12009 (Relating to Notification No. F. l0(30)lg6lL& BlLNl34Il dated 13. 12-2000 issued under Section 4 of the Lancl Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award 'lrlo. 26 12002-2003 clated 23 .10 .2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRrD-B) lleserved on: Decentber 08, 20Ll 'Pronot'mced on: Januant 06, 2012 -r-LA.APP. 29412010 (VILLAGE-tsIJIWASAN) a, % DEVE,NDEIT. KUMAI{ Through: LA.App. No. IJ9S/2OOB & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal L .App. No. 294|2OIO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. LLI/zoho & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur .... APPellant Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh ) 1-- versus Advocates Mr'S.K'solanki and Mr'S'I('Rout and Mr.B.I(. Routray, Advocates for appellant in R-2-14, 38, 4I-46, 49' 50-69' 73' 7 5'7 6) .'.. ResPondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poclclar, Seniol ffv391t9 tvitti Mr.SanJ ay Kumar Pathak' Mr'Mohitrao Jadtrav, and Ms'Navlin Swain' Advocates for UOIILAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr'S'I('Rout and Mr..B.I(' Routray, Advocates ir"r appeals nled bY UOI' Mr'Virlenclta Singh, Advocate in R-68' 7l & 12 in aPPeal filed bY UOI Mr.BankeY Bihar Sharma' Mr'Kunal Sharma and Mr'sorner l('Scth' Advocates for DDA. UOI & ANR i N .r LA.APP. 5212010 LA.APP. s6l20l0 LA.APP. 100/2010 r.A.APP.242l20t0 - LA.APP.282I2OTO LA.APP.287l20l0 LA.APP.295IZOTO LA.APP.34612070 LA.APP.3s0/2010 LA.APP.3s412010 LA.APP.36512010 LA.APP.360120T0 I.A.APP. 40s12010 LA.APP. 40912010 LA.APP.723l20l0 LA.APP.727l20l0 LA.APP.75012070 LA.APP.96412010 LA.APP.7712010 LA.APP. 1sl20l0 & LA.APP. tll20t0 LA.APP. 4gl20Io LA'APP' s1/2010 LA.APP. s3l20r0 LA.APP: s4l20ro LA'APP' s5l20t0 LA.APP. s7t20r0 LA.APP. ssl20r0 LA'AI! 70]?,?t0 in.npp. 22v2010 LA.App. 223t2010 LA.APP. 22612010 LA.APP. 24612010 LA.APP. 27712010 LA'APP' 28r2010 ia.app. 2l3t2or0. LA'APP. 28412010 LA'APP' 285!2010 LA.APP. 2SSl2o1(i LA.APP. 28gl2ol0 LA'APP' 29412010 in.npp. 2g6t20r0 LA.App. 3r3t20r0 . LA.APP.34s12010 LA.APP.34712010LA'APP.348120|0LA.APP.349120|0 LA.APP. 35112010 LA.APP. 35212010 LA'APP' 3s3120r0 LA.APP. 35612010 LA.APP. 35712010 LA'APP' 3sB/2010 LA.APP. 14212010 LA.APP. 76012010 LA'APP' 3s912010 LA.APP. 36112010 LA.APP. 36212010 LA'APP' 36312010 LA.APP. 40612a10 LA.APP. 40712010 LA'APP' 408i201 0 LA.APP. 43812010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA'APP' 72212010 LA.APP.72412010LA.APP'72512010LA.APP.72612,0|0 LA.APP. 72912010 LA.APP. 73ll20r0 LA'APP' 732'12'010 LA.APP. 759120:10 LA'A?P. 76412010 LA.APP. 82ti1i,.010 LA.AI']P. 28612010 LA.APP. 36412010 LA.APP.80/2010 LA.APP. 9912010 & C.M.No. 964120l t (Cross-objections) (Relaring to Notifrcation No. F.10(30)96-L e BlLAll3477 dated 13' I2'2Ct00 issued under Sectiol 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, lB94 & Award ].llo' 28 12002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND t^.App. No. LlgS/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal l.r\.App. No. lg4l11rc & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l^.App. No. LLL/I}LO & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur Page 4 of 2-9 .% (GIUD-C) I-A.APP. I tr 12010 (VILLAGE POCIIANPUR) /> Reserved on: December IB' 2AIl Pronounced on: Januaryt 06, 2012 J SEI{AJ I{AM AND ORS. Through: versus TINION OF INDIA & ANR Through: LA.APP. lITI2OIO LA.APP. 16012010 LA.APP.228I2OTO LA.APP.2s412010 LA.APP.29212010 LA.APP.3O7I2OIO I,A.APP. 395I2OTO LA.APP.42012010 LA.APP.46612010 LA.APP.63112010 LA.APP.660/2010 LA.APP.76712010 LA.APP. 91912010 LA.APP.65l20lt LA.APP. 12012011 LA.APP. 47612011 LA.APP. 52312011 LA.APP. 536120II Ln.App. No.1"195/2008 & connccted Appeals ofVillage Bharthal Ln.n pp. No. 294|2OIO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L .App. No, LIU1OLO & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur LA.APP. ls4l20l0 LA.APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 1s612010 LA.APP.T6512010 LA.APP.2O9I2OTO LA.APP.2I5I2OTO LA.APP. 24812010 LA.APP.24912010 LA.APP. 25012010 LA.APP. 26012010 LA.APP.26112010 LA.APP. 27012010 LA.APP. 2I3I2OIO LA.APP. 3O5I2OTO LA.APP. 30612010 LA'APP' 317120:-0 I,A'APP. 39212010 LA'APP. 393120|0 LA.APP. 396120:i0 I,A'APP. 39712010 LA'APP' 41212010 LA.APP. 43212010 LA.APP. 43312010 LA.APP. 434.12010 LA.APP. 48912010 LA.APP. 57712010 LA.APP. 63s12010 LA.APP. 6391201,0 LA.APP. 640120|0 LA.APP. 657|2010 LA.APP. 66212010 LA.APP. 74112010 LA.APP. 75812010 LA.APP. 768120t0 ' LA.APP .78412010 LA.APP. 9l ti/2010 LA.APP. TO52I2OIO LA.APP. 6112011 LA.API>.64/20IT LA.APP. IT6120IL LA.APP. TllI2OII LA.APP.TIqI}OLI LA.APP. 12112011 LA.APP.l29l201l LA.APP. 42912011 LA.APP. 48sl2or1 LA.APP.s21l20r1 LA.APP. 52212011 LA.APP. 52512011 LA.APP.526I2QII LA.APP' 53:'I2OTT LA.API'. 55412011 LA.APP. 591/2011 ..... APPellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr,S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20,23 Lo 26,29,30,33,361o 40,44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. I(utnar, Advocate for appellant itt LA.App.No. 6 1, 64, 65 l20ll) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant inI\-22) ..... I{espondents Mr.Sanjay Podclar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanj ay I(urnar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jaclhav, ancl Ms.Navlin Swain, Adrrocates for UOIILAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.I(unal Shartna'and Mr. Sorner I(. Seth, Advocates for DDA. lt (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)9 6:L& BlLAlI34lT dated

13.12.2000 issr,rcd under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Bc Award No. 30/20 02-2003 dated 0g.I2.20O2,Ytl\age Pochanpur, Delhi) COR-dM: IION'tsLE MR..TUSTICE SUNIL GAUIT onDl0R.

06.01.2012 '

¶1Since the groulds on which enhancement of the cornpensatiou is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, J .i .f , ther-efore with the consent of leamed counsel'for the parlies present ;a.t the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to No tffication No. F. I 0 (i 0) 9 6-L& B/LA/ I 3 4 I 7 da.t ed I 3. 1 2. 2 000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan arrd Pochanpur are being disposed of by this cotnrnon order- .

¶2A.quisition process for planned development of 'Dwarlcci Phase-il'in Delhi, colnmenced with the issuance of Notification of l:l't' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1ti94, perlaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block . comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages iu question, a' i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur. ' ' , 3. Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforcsaid three villages Stqod accluired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.c., Award No.26l20 02-2003; Award No.28l20 O2-2003;and, Award No.30/200?-2003 granting cornpensation @ ttf .S2 lacs per acre Jbr Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @ <12.32 lacs per acre Jbr Illock'13' (without toP soil).

¶4Dissatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acquired ol, LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal Ln.npp. No. 294/2'to & connectedAppeals of Village Bijwasan Ln.App. No. 1L1 /2O\O & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ) /) agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, I8g4 ancl the Reference Coutt vide irnpugned ju<lgrnent had enhanced compensation @ <15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Bloclc 'A' and @ {13.36 lacs per acre fcrt'. their Block 'B' land in Villages .Bhafthal and Bijwasan; wherear;' re.felences relating to Village Pochanpur have been'disrnissed'

¶5I1 these appeals, fuither enhanceinent of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupce:s Irifly lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur irave souglrt compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upol1 tlre precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, I(arruttaka Housing Board vs. Lnncl Acquisition Officer, Godag oncl Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246; Aniani M'olw Dessai vs. State oJ'Goa uttd Anr',

(2010) 13 SCC 7I0; Subh Ram antl Ors vs. State of Haryana and Anr',

(2010) 1 scc 444; Sangunthala.(Deuct) througlt LIls. Vs. Spe'cial Tehsilclur (Lund Actlt'tisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; R'anvir Singh anrl Anr, vs. (Jnion of Indiu AIR 2005 sc 3467; Chindha Fukira Pstil

(D) through LRs tts. The Special l-snd Acquisition officer, Jal'guon, 20ll(2) SCALE 321; rai Lsl vs.'(Inion of Inclia, 2002 (62) DP.I 227; Rama Nanel (since deceasecl) through IRs vs. (Jnion of Indiu & Atu", 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Ucltto l)ass vs. state of llaryans & ors., 2010(9) SCAI.E 4I; Chakos ys. Startg of Puniab & Ors., 20ll (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaii Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC I7I; Atnta Singh (Deatl) througlt LRs untl Ors vs. Sttte of' Haryano & Anr, (2008) 2 sCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 414312003 titled as Snil. Intlu l{horana vs. Gram Sabho & Ors, decided on 26.03'2010; Special Lsntl Acquisition Oflicer & ,A,nr vs. M.I( Roflq Saheb, (201 1) 7 SCC 714; Ttritksrsibhai Deujihlaai und ors vs. Execwtitte Engineer, LA.App. No. 1195/2908 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal tA.App. No. 294/2O1O & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan f.A.App. No. LLll2OtO & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur a ) I( Gr{arat and ,Anr., AIR 20OI SC' 2424; Haryana State Industriail Development corporatiort, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risul singh & ors' vs' (Jnion of Inclia & Anr.,2006 (89) Dzu 527 (DB); I-sl chand vs' urti'o'n of India anel Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; Genersl Munoger, oil and Nutural Gas Corportution Lttl vs" Rsmeshbltui .Iivanbhai Patel nrtd Anr,(2008) 14 SCC 745; Valtiyanumsl sncl Anr vs. specful Tehsilriar (Land Acquisition) ancl Anr., AII1 2011 sc 2937; I{irsn Tondon t's' Allshubstl Developnrent Autltority, (2004) 10 scc 745; Maheslt Dattatray Thirthkor vs. state of Maharashtra, AII{ 2009 sc 2238; Ifupil Mehrs (Maior General) & ors. vs. (Jnion of Indiu & '4nr, 176(20i1) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 428412007 titled as surat singh vs' Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Oln Prnleash (cleud) by LRs sncl ors t s. (Jnion of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627; satpat & ors vs. (Inion of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; I'A. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kurnar vs. (Jnion oJ' India, decidcd on

26.09.2011; I.A. APP. No.59l2007 titled as Bed Rsm vs-union of' India, clecided on 07.06.201I; and Bhule Rclm vs. (Jnion of India,20l0

(170) DLT 37r.

¶6On the strelgth of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was ulged by Mr.B.S.Maan, leatned arguing counsel for the appellants ' that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgect keeping in view the development in the area over a period oI time ancl the same cannot be lirnited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tornar, counsel for appellants lhat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dirtiding it into two pafts, i.e., on the eastem side of the railway line is the IGI Airport, i\ew Delhi L .App. No. 1195/?008 & connectedhppeals ofVillage Bharthal L .App. No. 294/2OIO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. t1J,/z1i:1 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 8 of ?9 t a. t) and oil Depots of Indian oil and Bhafat Petroleurn and a road 100 meters wide starting frorn NH-8 fi'orn shiv Murli towards Dwarka sub-city Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two poflions; (i) North Eastern side, whele IGI Air:port is located; and (ii) South Eastetn side, whele developed Fann Houses are located on the land of villages Bharthal, Bijwasan,and Samalkha' It was also pointed out by Mr-.s.K.solanki learned counsel for the appellanls thal northern part of the land of village Bharthal was first acquired for th-e extension of IGI Airport in the yeat 1971. and again in the year 1980 ltrr establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleurn and the lands of village Bharthal and village PochanpLrr wel'e also acquired in the year 1984 fo1 developrnelt of Dwarka Phase-I and . the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and l)hool Siras were also acquiled for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-Cit'y' Attention was drawn to the alcs sizraslmap to highlight that the boundzrry of Village llharlhal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was streluously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellalts that the Refelence Coutt has failed to appreciate' the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has iilegatly treated the acquiled land to be agricultural i1 spite of Notification of 16tl' October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed fi'om agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of Viliage Bharthal lrad ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 24'l' October,1994. g. It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.I(.Rottt, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly cliscarcled by the I{eference Courl by relying upoll F-Rartra L .App. No. ttsslzpoe& connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal L .App. No. 294|2OLO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. LLU2OIO & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur 1Y Redcli & Ors. vs. Lsnd Acquisition Officer, I{yderabad & Ors' (199,5) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Courl irr its lat,:r decision in(lelhoDass vs. State o.f E{aryana & Ors.,2010(9) SCALE' 4I holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of tirne and the sarne cannot be lirnited to a neat' future alone and if after Lhe acquisition, if the authorities do not put the lancl to any use, it woulcl not r11ean that there is no building potentiality-

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Shanna, learnecl "o.utt.l for the appcllalts upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied fi'om t52 tacs to {62 lacs arcl mcrely bccause of the said valiation, these.sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Cour1, bccattse there is no basis,to conclude tha1. these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled'legal proposition laid dowp by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessui vs. Sttte oJ'Goa and,A,nr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale excmplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to {57 lacs per acrc and since the sale e>iemplars relied upon by the appellants are the cornparable sale instances, therefore, reliancc placed by the Reference Court upoll the minimurn ratcs/circle rates for detennining lhe rnarkct value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.

¶11Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the Government for allotrnent of alternate plots in the year 2000 -}OOL I(eeping in view the location, situation and potcntiality of the acquiled land, detennination of its marltct value is tl.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal L .App. No. 294lZO]o & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. IIUZ:OLO & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village. Pochanpurr and Village Sarnalkha or altelnatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre- . Determined'Itates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant - hnpulse India Plivate Limited of LA. App. No. 29512009 has assailed the.irnpugned judgment on the following grouuds:- a) "Ignores the aclmowledgement on the part of the t ';;:,";i;;i "x:;:r""n#;'0,f" /17'2:":",:.,2";*:,i, proceeclings Civit Wit petition No.l90l2 of 2006' (Referred to ih cross-e.Y,amination of appellartt d.ated

7.7.2007) b) Does not account for the fact that th.e Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land i'n tlrc area for more than I5 year;s before th.e Notificcrtiort. tmder Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, lB94 was issued. 4 Valutng the land on the basis of the letter dated I1.9.2001 issued by the Goverruttent of National Capital Territory of Dethi is not in accordance witlc the law l,a'id d.ov,n by various decisiorts inclt'df,ng in one of the tnore recent decisions of the Hon'ble Suprente Cow't in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 20 I 0(3) SCC 66 I - d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per established law has to be considered. before ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition. e) Does not. deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deecls produced b.efore tlrc tria.l Court whereas as per the latlt established by the Hon'ble Suprente Cow"t in the recent case of Chinda Falcira Patil versus Special I'and Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. Tlrc Ilon'ble Supreme Cow"t has specifically held that Sale Deed showing h.igher ra.te should not be disregarded in ' Ln.npp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal Ln.App. No. 294/2O7O & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasan LA.App. No. 7],U2O1O & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur J case tlxe average sale price is lotver. Ilw'ther in Aniana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) 'SCC 710, the Sttpreme Court has also held tha.t the higlrcst of the exemplars and not by averaging of dffirent types of sales transactions should be considered while aclj udic ating. up o n c otllp ens atiott t'tport a c ertan l and' .n Rehed Lpon iudgntent dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the marlcet value of the subject land while ignoring the ntaterial which indicate that the marlcet value of the land is muclt higher than 15 lac per acre in Bloclc A and<13,36,000 in Bloclc B in violati'ort of the law laid down b1t the Hon'ble Suprent.e Cow"t inclttding in Subh Ram vs. State of l{aryana 2010(I) SCC 444. As a consequence, t:he intpugrted judgment refused to return an actual firtding on the issaLe No' I f'amed on 27.2.2007. g) Evatuated the land as agrictLltt'tra.l land although vide Notification of the Mrmicipal Corporation of Del'hi, th'e land use of Village Dhool Siras and llharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and canxe now under the urban boundari.es of Delhi State. The ntasterplan and Notifications of Government for Iand use change shov, that in futw'e land can't be subjected to residential, comntercial an.d. other perm.issible.uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the -appellant lead evideice in iespect of the 74't' amendm,ent of the Constittttion of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by virhte of whiclc the Municipal Corporation Act ll)cts amended and the area where the land.ts situated, vvas deemed a municipal. area and the municipal Comsellor was elected from there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) llefused to apply the law laid down in AIII Supreme Cow"t 3467, Ranvir Shryln and Anr vs. Union of lndia and refused to consider the fact that t,lce developntent in tlrc area has a direct effect on the price tha.t a willittg purchaser would payfor the stLbiect land. c , Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had a.l.so Ul.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal Ln.App. No. 2g4/2oLo & connected Appeals of Village B'rjwaian LA.App. No. 17L/2oIo & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur Page 12 ol 29 vl adctioned sinti'larly situated land o, "onrrr.ercial .bloclcs at the rate of about t2.6 lakh and concluded tlmt the said land is wholly underdeieloped land' The valuation of th.e subiect lancJ is even lotver than the p,re-determined auction rates set by Respondent No' 2 for shnilarlY situated land' Does not talce into accourtt the possibility of change of the use of the land altltottgh the land' was acquired for development purposes of Dwarlca Phase II' It is reiterited tlcat th) lancl uie.of Vilage Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased' to be agricultural and ,o,rru now tmder the urban botmdaries of Delhi State. ulgnoredNotfficationsdated]6.10.2000and24.10']994 ' ilthougl, iruy clearly establish the commercial porentialiry of tlce said land. In Sangt'tntlmla v. TahsiLdar '(LA), (20i0) 3 scc 661 itwas l4eld that the pu.posefo.r' whichlandisacquiredisafelevantfactor.While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether th-e land has got building potentiality to be used fdr buitding purpotui i' ittuttediate or in near ftttwe needs to be considered' m) The presence of a nuntber of bttildings on t!9-lands acqtdredand'tlrusaidlqndbeingoccupiedbythe buitdrngs are to be treated as house sites. Tlrc l.ands were acquired for pttrpose of puttin'g up residential quarters. As, a iortion of the land is being considered as house site, thl adioining lands have tlce potential o.f betng put in better use aS hottse sites in tlrc near fr'tlLre' "

¶13In the brief synopsis by ved Pal and others of LA. App'', Nrl' 1].47lZO09, the factual details have been provided with a prayer that ttre appellants of this appeal be treated al pal with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals'

¶14Supplernenting the aforesaid. alguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Aland Yadav, Advocate that the effect of LA.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage! Bharthal LA.App. No. 2g4l2OIO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan lJl.App. No. :-Ll/lOlO & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur ) 2-' urbanizatiol of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered rn Mahesh Dsttatray Thirthkur vs. Sl.ste of Muharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehrs il4toio, Generatr) &. Ors. Vs. (Jnion of Inelia & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-I)etcrmined Rates, Reserved Auction Itates of the area arc relevan'[ to detelline the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale ilstances lelied upon by the appellants'are cotnparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the corrcct rnarket value of the acquired lands. 'J.'hus, euhancement of cotnpensation. r-cflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquircd lancls is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Podclar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Sectior-r 51-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an achnissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as rlelevant'eviclence for detelmination of the market value unless anct until the satne is properly connected with the land in question and clernent of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation o.F the property, proxirnity to the village etc. are also required to be considelcd and the sale instances relied upon by t\e Respondents disclosing correct malket value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Rcference Couft and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai, l"nl v.s. (Jnion of Indiu, 2002 (62) DRI 227, Sutpal & Ors vs. Union of Indiu, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lal Chsnd vs. Union of Indiu and A,rtr",

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Susltil l{umar vs. (Jnion of Indiu, decided on26.09.20I'I, it was urged that sharp increase . in price in a shorl period cannot be taken to be'realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the scller LA.App. No. ],195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2OLO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan Ln.App. No. LIL/2}]:O & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur 1-> and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflectecl in the sale instance of Radha Swanti Satsang, Beas, relied Ltpoll by the appellants, but for special considelation. Thus, it was contcnded on bchalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L&. DO rates/llre-Detemined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lul Chand (supra) which has' been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court iit Swsltil Kumar (supra) and l?aj Singtt (supra).

¶16So lar as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Ml.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectors that the same has already been factoled into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Govetutnent as on 1" April, 2000 -and by granting appreciation thereon @ I2Yo pet annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneor:sly , determincd by the Reference Courl, as in Sushil l{unmr (supra) appleciatron @ I0o/o per annllm has been granted. Thus, 't it t.t1r111ittred that there is no scope for ftiithel enhancement fiorn the price o:f acquirecl " lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the irnpugned' judgrnent deselves to be rnodified deleting the enhancetnent by the Iteference Court while taking into consideration the appleciation @ 12% per annuln and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ L0% per annunl and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. .

¶17Afler considedng tfre rival. submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned judgrlent, tlre evidence on lecord and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the cornparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to a willing LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal Ln.App. No. 294/2OL0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.n pp. No. LII/2oIo & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ,t) ''n u4 seller and the best evidence is the cornparable sale instances. while .ctealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, whaL has to be colsidered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated. by the Apex court in utllto Dass vs. stute of Haryana ai' Ot's.,2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- " (i) the sitttation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which.had been growing in size Itecause of its cornm.erciitl, i,ndustrial, educati.onal, . religious or any other tcind of i.mportance or becausc of its exPlosive PoPulation,' (i, the suitabitity of ttle acquired land for puttitlg up the btdldings, be th.ey residential, corttnterci.al or industrial,'as the case ntaY be; , (ii, possibitity'of obtaining water and electric supply for occ.ttpants of buildings to be put up on that land;

(ir) ctbsence of statufory impedintents or the likefor ttsi'rtg the acquired landfor l:uilding purpose,'

(v) existence of higlma;vsi;, public roads, layouts of bui.tding plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the a.cquired land,'

(ti) benefits or advantages of educational instittttiorts, health care centres, or the like in the. swrounding areas of the acquired land which nxay becortte availabie to th.e occupiers of buildi,gs, if built on. the . acquired land; and . (uiil lands around'the acE,tired land or tlce acqttired lanc{ itself being in dentand for building purposes' to specifu a few. "

¶18The potentiality of lancl for the pulpose of development as also for buildilg pglposes depends Llpoll a lar-ge tlutnber bf factors. For the sa'id putpose, the Court may lot only have to bear in mind the purpose fbr LA.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 2g4/2o]:O & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan Ln.App. No. itt/ZOto & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur Page 15 of;!9 FL J ){ whiih the lands were sought to be bcquired but also the subsequent evelts to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in " A,t,inaslr (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atnm 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. p. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in S.pec:i'ul Lsnrl Acquisi,tion Officer & Anr vs. M.I{. Rofiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCrl

¶714Thc legal proposition which elnerges from the decisions relied Llpon on.behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either i1 location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to thcm even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between sirnilarly situated lancls and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of ploving the trr-re market value of the acqr,rired land is on the State r4,ho has acquired the agricultural land for a particular putpose. But, it is cclually tlue that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarclecl is on the claimant. Fol this proposition, the decision of ttre Apex Court in lfirun Tandon (Supra) can be refened to with advantage. 2I. Apex Courl in Valliyanunal (Supra), while taking notc of thc fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residenlial colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40oh towards development charges was imploper. The pertinent obselvations rnade by the Apex Court in Anjuni Molu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention. which at'e as under:- fA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal +i L .App. No. 29412OL0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. tLJ,/zoto & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur PaEe L7 of 29 ,) ,'The legal position is that even where there are severa'l' exenrplis with referen,ce to similar lands, usually tlrc higttist of the exernplars, which is a bona fide transa.ction, will be considered.-'were however there are several sales of sintilar lands wl,tose prices range in a narrow bandt'vidth, the average thereof Zan be'talcen, as representing the^ n,a.rlcet: price. Bui where tlce va.lues disclosecl in respect of huo sales are marlcedly dffirent, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dis-similar lands or that the lotver value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressin.g reasons. consequently averaging can.n.ot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to tal<e note of the clinching observatiotrs pertaining to cletermination of fair market rate of acquired lands tnacle by tlre Apex court tn chindhs Fskiru Patil (supra), which aIe as follows:- ."It is well settled that gerutine and bgna fidu sa'le trcmsactions in respect of the land under accluisiti'on or in its absence the bonafide sa'le transactions proxim'ale to tlte pointofacquisitionofthelandssihlatedinthc ^netghboilrcod of rhe acquired lands possessing similar value or tilility talcen place between a willing vendee and the willing vindoryitrh could be expected to reflect the true valtti, o, agreed betuveen reasonable prudent persons acting in the noimal rnarlret conditions are the real basis to determine tlrc marlcet value' "

¶23Principles to detertnine the market value of the acquired lands as rciterated by the Apex Court in Oit snel Nutural Gus Corporation Ltd'

(ONGC) (SuPra), are as under:- \J, "Primarily, tlce tncrease ht...l.and prices depenls on fow" fa.ctors - situation of the ldnd, nature of developntent in' - surrounding area, availabiliD, of land for development i'rt th.e a.rea, ind the dern.and for land in the area.. In ru.ral areas unless there is any prospect of developnient in the vicinity, increase in prices yvould be slow, steadlt and gradual, without any sudden spurts or juntps' L .App. No. J.ilgsl2OOg & connected nppeals ofVillage Bharthal Ln.App. No. 2g4l2oLo & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan Ln.App.No. L].:./2oIO & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur )..) On the other hand, in urban or senti-urban arects, where the developntent is faster, where the demand for land is ldglt and where there is construction activity all around, tlrc' escala.tion in marlcet price is at a tntrch ltigh.er rate, as contpared to rural qreas. In some poclcets in big cities, dtLe to rapid developnr.ent and high demand for land, tlte esca.lcttions in prices have touch.ed even 300k.to 50oh ot' nxore per year, during the nineties. On tlrc ot'h.er exlrem.e, itt rentote rural areas vltere there was no chance of any developntent and lcardly any buyers, tlce prices stagna'ted for yea,rs or roqe marginally at a nominal rutte of lok or 2ok per anlnunx. There is tlct'ts a stgnificant dffirence irt increases in marlcet value of lands in urban/senti-t'u'bart area.s and increases. in ma.rket val,ue of lands in th.e rural areas. Therefore tf the increase in marlcet val.trc in ru'ban/senti-urban areas is about I0% to 15o% per a.nnLur4 the corresponding increase,s in rural arens woul'd a.t best be only a.round half of it, that is about 50% to 7.5% per ann.Lul't' This rule of tlrurnb refer,s to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to in.crease in prices. Were there are specfal reasons for applying a higlrcr ra.te of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upot't the sarne. Normally, recourse is talcen to tJte mode of deterntirtirtg .the ntarlcet value by provi.dfu,g appropriate escalation over the proved marlcet value of nearby lan,ds in previous years (as eviden.ced by sale transactions ot" acquisition), where there is no evidence of any conternpora.neous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable la.nds in tlte neigh.bourhood. The said method is reasonabb, safe where the relied-on-sa.le transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition. by only a few years, tlcat is upto four to five years. Beltsncl that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a. neigltbotu'irt.g Iand. Wat ntay be a reliable standard f tlte gap is onlt ct few years, tnay become tm.safe a.n.d un.reliable, standard yvhere the gap is larger. Iior example, for detentt.in.ing the ntarlcet value of a land a.cquired in 1992, adopling the annual increase nrcth.od with reference to a sale or \.l L .App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bhalthal LA.App. No. 294/2O1O & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan Ln.npp. No. tLL/2oIO & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanput acqr.tisition in 1970 or I9B0 may have nxany pitfulls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of arutual increase may itself undergo drastic change apa.rt f"ont the lilretihood of occurr:ence of varying periods of stagn.al.ton in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecti.rtg the very stan.dard of increase. "

¶24Tlris Court is mindful of the diciurn of the Apex Court rn Haryana State Inrlustrial Developntent Corporation (HSIDCI (Supra), regarcling computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods. What was said by the Apcx Court in HSlttC (Supra) is as under:- "When d.ffirent categories of lands (or lands with dffirent situational advantages) are acquiredfor th.e sanle purpose, sast for form.ing of a residential l,ayou.t, cot'u"ts have som.etimes felt tlmt deterntinatiort of their value vvitlt ieference to previotts status or situation sh.ould be avoided. and a unifornt rate of contpensation shor'ild be awarded for all lands acquired under the sarne nottfication. "

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and arouncl acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in clueslion are not available ernd the solitary sale exemplar strongly rclied ullorl by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide r,vhich religious institution, i.e., Radlm Swand Sa,tsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur ert a price wlrich varied fi'orn {52 lacs toT62lacs per acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-ll4 to Ex.PW-1/10) which are basically between one set of co-owners and Ra.dha Swant.i Satsctng, IJeas in respect of the compact bloclc of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 lJiswas situatecl in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is requir,:d to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Decds t ..t L .App. No. t].g'/zoo$ & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2Ot0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan Ln.App. No. lL]-/zOLO & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur J. (I1x.PW-Il4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price v'aries fiom {52 lacs to 762 lacs per acl'e. Meaning thereby, the entire land. of the sale cxemplars - Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-ll4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not cornrnand" the same rnarket price. It was dependent r-rpon the nature and situation of the af,olesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in cluestion, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be lreated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. 'I'he special neecl of the purchasel of these agricultural lands in,Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex..t'W-Il4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has not be6n brouglrt out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural lancl has no1 been got exarnined by the appeliants. FIad the purchaser/venclee ol the aforesaid sale exernplars been got exarnined, then it could have been elicited flom hirir as to why he had agreed to pay Such a high pricc lor tlrese lands. The special fancy of the purchaset, i.e., .Radha Stvam.i Satsan.g, I3eas. who had purchased nrore than 33 Bighas of iand al an exolbitant price in Village Marnurpur vide Sale l)eed executecl on 25tl' March, 2000 was also subject maller in LA. App. No.26612008 titled as Joi Sirtglt vs. (Jnion of India, decided on23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 99912010 titled as Raj Singh ys. (Jnion of India, decidecl on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Villa.ge Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot bc treal.ed as representative price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquiled larlds was changed nuch prior to their a.cquisition, but it has colne in evideuce that the accluired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their acquisition. 'fhus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not dcvelopecl lancls. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294120LO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan Ln.App. No. LLUzOto & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur ]s ' mzrrket plice of the land in question would pay such a high pricd uuless and until such purchase is meant for special tonsideration and so, in the cclnsidcred opinion of this Courl the sale cxetnplars, i.e., Salc I)eeds (lix.IrW-l/4 to llx.PW-1/10) .have been rightly discarded by the . Rcfcrencc Coutl.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) . relicd upon by the appellants is concernecl, clisclosing exorbitant pricc of <I,76,55,172.41 per acle relating to Salc Dced of 27't'Jamrary, 2000, it .nccds to be noted that because this salc exetlplar (lJx.PW-l/l l) was I siluatecl on the National I-Iighway - B and because vicle Salc Dced Qix.PW-1/11) vendor'had sold dot only the land but the structtu'c thcreon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lanc, etc., therefole, it had fetched such a.high price. In view thcreof, this sale exemplar cannot be trcated as a representative plice fol the accluired lancls i{l qucsLion.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic pricc of similarly ituatcd lands in the vicinity, now it is required to bc coirsidered as to wlrcther adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands a.n<l Prc-I)etcnnined Itates for thc alternate plots by the DDA ought to be r adopted to <Jeterm.ine the true market value of thc acqr-rirecl lancls in .:,J qucstion.

¶30Paramctcrs governing fixation of rnarket valuc of acquirecl larrds highlightcct by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ilum Reddy ontl Ors. v. Land Acquisition Olficer Elyderabad Urban Developnrcnt . Authority Hyclerabad antl Ors., Igg5 (2) SCC 305 alc as unclcr:- , "12. Ilowever, in ef.ther of the sai,d cases wlrcther" it be l.hc determination of tlze ma.rlcet va.lue of th.e acquired la.nd. wil.lt building potentia.lifit with reference to the price fetched b1t sale of plols in a well developed lastottl: in the neighborhood l.'\.App. No. IL95/2OOB & connected nppeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2OL0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan t"A.App. No. tLt/2OLO & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur PaBe 22 of Z9l t or \,vlxether it be the determinat[on of the ntarlcet value of the acqoLired land. wf.th building poten(ial.ity tvitlt. reference to ' the price fetch.ed b), sale of bt'ilding plots in an mdevelopecl Iayout of buildhtg plots i.n tlte neigh.borhood, it becorttes in.evita.ble for the Court to find out what will be the price fbtched or to befetched by tlrc sales of plots in the layootts, reli.ed Ltpotx b1t any of the parties, with reference to the price wlcich'the plots could ha.ve fetched if sold on the date of tlte publiccrtion of the prelim.inary nottfication tmder Secti.ort 4(I) of tlte AcL Further, where no evidence ofprice fetclrcd b1t t.lne sales of \he pl.ots in lctyot'Lts of buildf.ng plots irt the neighborhood of the acqttired lancls beconr.es availlr,ble, tlrcn what could be done is to find out the marlcet va,lue of Lhe acqttired land with re/brence to the rel.evant date of publication under Secti,on a(Q of the LA Act, according lo tJrc acl.ual use to which it was put and in.crease its value bv a sntall percentage having regard to 'the clegree of its building poten.ttality a.scertained on the basis of eviclence to be 'ntade available in. that rega.rd. A sntall percenta.ge i.ncrease to be given shall not exceed l/5th cf the nta.rlcel. vahte of th.e land found out according /:o its ach,tal user since resort to t.he method of giving increased valt'Le .for such building potentiality arises onlt when |.here is rto evidence of sales of buildi.ng pl.ots in the neighborhood. of /.he acquired land indicating that there v)as no i.rnmediate d.enta.nd, as suclt, for building^plots even if fornted in the ctcquired la.nd. " .

¶31In vicw of the diffrculties in adoption of rate of lancl chalged b1, the DDA erfter acqniring the agricr,rltural lands, developing the same, ancl transferring pelpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Couft in Lal Chond (Sr-qrra), hcld that it is not safe or advisable to lely upon the allotmcnt ratcs/Pre-I)eterrnined Rates in cletermining the market valne of thc acljoining unclevcloped fieehold lands. Following the dictr-un of Lnl Clrand (Supla), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Surpra) ancl Susltil lft,tnmr (Supra) has excluded the DDA ratcs qua tl"rc ct&elopecl lands as being not relevant for assessing the malket value of I lA.App. No. I195/2OOB & connccted Appeals ofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/ZOfi & connected nppeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. I77/?-OtO & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur PaBez3 of 29 32-ce Cou:rt .l, thc turclcveloped acquired lands. T'hus, I find that the l{efercn has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotrncnt of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Determined Itates lol alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question'

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether proglessive increase nctlr.od would b.e rclevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into considelation the earliel accluisition of thc year IgB4 in Village Bharthal and other villages for developtncut of f)warka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Pod<lar, lcamccl senior counsel for the lespondent/cross-objector that even if the cscarlation at the colnpoultded rate of l0o/o per annum is takcn fi'orn the yeat' 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for developmept of Dwarka Phasc-I and the instant Notification.for developrnent of Dwalka Phase-II, still thc pricc fixcd try thc Land Acquisition Collector is lrore than the aforesaid escalated price and thcrcfol'c, the enhanceruent granted by thc Iteference Court is unjustilied.

¶33Aforesaid argument does nothold good in view ofih" dictr-rrn of thc'Apex Court in Lal Chand (Supla), cautioning the Courts to aclopt progrcssive increasc rnethod in assessrnent of the tlarket valuc of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond tliat it rn:ry be unsafc, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What rnay be a reliable standarcl, if the gap is of only of a few years, tlay bccomc unszlfe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In thc instant case, Lhe gap bctwccn the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phatse-I and Dwallca . Phase-II is of sixtcen years and thereforc, it would bc unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by ploviding appropria.tc ) LA.App. No. tl9S/2O08 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2oLO & connected nppeals ofVillage BUwasan LA.App. No. tlt/2otl & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur Pagea4 of 29 V 3f cscalation over the market value of the nearby land of thc previotts years.

¶34Mr-.Sanjay . Po<lclar, learned senior counsel for the r:espondent/cross-objector had urged that .the I{efcrcnce Court has granted escalation @ 12% per allnum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Courl in Sushil l(unmr (Supra), has granted cscalation @ 10% per aru1um. Afler having pen-rscd thc decision in Sr.tshil l{unmr (Supra), I find that 100/o increase ol1 account of higher' potentiality of the acquiled land over and above 1he market valtte {ctcrnilccl by the Referencc Court has been granted attcl so, by lelying Lrpon Sushil l{umur (Supla) escalation granted by thc Iteference Court @ 12% pcr atrtum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view'o-f the.tnatter, thc ct'oss-objcctiotls of the lespondcnt arc clismissecl.

¶35Now what is to be secn is whethcr adoption of (iovcrnmenL's rninimum plicc of the agricultulal l4nd in Delhi, by thc Rcferencc Court is reasonabls criteria for dcterrnining thc market value of the acquirccl land ancl as to whethel the escalation of I2o/o per anllllltt grantecl'by thc Itcference Court fiom the date of Jixation of the tninintul price lor thc agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. 1" April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals descrves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Governrrent's rninimum latcs of agricr-rltural land pertaining to the Notification in question has bcen assailed by thc learnecl counscl for appellants because the acquircd land had ceasecl 1.o be an agricultural iand by virtue of Notificatiou of 24tt' October, 1994 cleclaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to krc urban. It is true that vide aforesaicl Notification of the year 1994 the land use of 1he acquired iand had changcd but that by itself is not sufficient l.o t' LA.App. No. 1.L9S|2OO8 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/aOLO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L .App. No. LII/Z:O1:O & connected Appeals ofVillage Pochanpur PaBe 25 of 2!l jq presume lhat the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. l-he evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of lhere being any development in and aronnd the acquired lands in question. Not only this, everl the sale exemplars of llarlha Stvami. Satsang, Beas heavily reiied upon by the appellants clisclose that tlie salc of thc said lands was for agricuhural purpose

¶37Itathct', it emergcs fiorn the evidence on record lhat till thc issuance of Notification under Section 4 of thc Lanct Acquisition Act, 1894, the accluiled lands wer'e put to agricultulal nse. I-Iad there becn l,' ntclcasi in price due to higher demand, on accoultt of potentiality of lhe acquired lands upolr. change of their use post thc year 1994, thcn appellants could have laid their'hands on other saie instances in the area in question. I3ut, indeed appellants cannot lely upon the sale of the lancl in Village Pochalrpur to a religious institution and anothel salc inslance of Villagc Sarnalldra (Ex.PW-1/11) without leading aury eviclence tr> cstablish that tire quality and potentiality of the sale cxemplars of Radha . Svvami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Villagc Sarnalkha (Iix.PW-1/11) are comparable with the acquircd ialds and so the contiguity of the acquiled land with thc sale instance o.[ Viilage Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot bc treatccl to bc sufficient ground to grant higher cotnpensation whiie relying Llpoll the aforesaicl sale instanccs. Therefore, in view of thc aforc-referrccl dictum of thc Apcx Court in Haryana State Inclustrial Development Corporatiort (I{SIDC) (Supra), unifortn late of compensation deserves to be awardcd for thc lands acquired under the same Notification in thc light of thc ' ininitnum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural lalcl in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to liig6er , polcntialily. faking note of the fact that therc is a gap bctween wliat a L.A.App. No. LI95/2OOB & connccted n ppeals ofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2OtO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. ILI/ZOIO & connected n ppeals ofVillage pochanpur !j 3( wollld bc expccted to be the market growth and what the rnarkct llad actually grown, Govemrnent's minimum agricultural price has been h,:ld to be.r'easonable basis for assessing the narket value of the acquil'ed larncls rn fai Singh (Supra) as well as in Susltil l(umar (Supla) ancl I find l1o reasorl to take a different view than the onc which had becn tzrken by coordinate Ilench of this Court in the afolesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Swsltil lfuunsr (Supra).

¶38l'his Court is of the considered view that the I{eferencc Court in thc matters pertaining'to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied Llpon the Govcrnrncnt's minimum pricc for agricultr"rral lands in Delhi to fix the rnarket value of the acquired lands in cluestion. Finding of the Iteference Couft in matter of Village llharlhal and Village I3ijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of thc accluiled lands is sirnilar to sale exemplars is borne out from the cvideuce on lecorct. But I fincl that the aspcct of highcr potentiality o1'ttrc acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil ancl Illiarat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Ilharthal and there being a 100 rneters vide road starting fi'orn Nt-I-8 fi'orn Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-iity, Part I and Part II, dividing the accluircd lands in two portions, and there being liarm l"Iouscs in thc vicinity of thc acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of t|c Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid locational advantages, thc acquiled lands in question, certainly assLrlllc higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phasc-I. What pcrsuacles this Court to gt'ant 10oZ increase over and abovc markct valttc of thc acquired lands as assessed by the Itefereltce Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lar"rcls is tLrc a L .App, l'fo. 1195/2008 & connected n ppeals ofVillage Bharthal Ln.App. No. 294/2OIO & connected Appeals ofVillage Bfwasan L .App. No. LLI/ZOLO & connected nppeals ofVillage pochanpur Page27 ol 29 sctticcl legal positio' aptly higlilighted by' the Apcxt Courl ";;: Neutslrerv,an l{ltnrt vs' Collector' (1975)i SCC 238' in these words:- ,,Weno|lceaconclttsionisreachedthattherewasthe possibitiry of the acquired lancl being used for pt'tttittg up buildingst,t|,uimmediateornearfutt'u'e,suc|lconcltLsion wouldtru"r"f4"fenttoholdthattheacqt'tiredlandhada building lroi"rttolity and ltroceed. to cletermine its marlcet valuelalcingintoaccotmttlrcitzcreaseinpriceattri,butable to st'Lclt building potentiality' "

¶39Considcring the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a dchnite vallre qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can ncvct be achievecl in the tnatters of usstssing fair compensation' it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuacles mc to treat them rvitlreqtrivalenceby.uniforrnlyapplyingtlreGovernment,smininrutn prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value o[ thc acquircd lands as thele are no speciar features to treat trre acclr-rirccl lancls cliffcrqntly and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur arc trcated ert parwitlrtlrcir.counter-patls,i.c.,appeilarrtsofVillagcBhartlraland village Bijwasan. I-Iowever, while r:elying uilol1 the decision iti 'sllsftfd I(unmr(Supr.a),Iaminclinedtogra,ntl0%incrcaseovel.andabovetlre . mar-ket valuc of the acquired lands cletermined by thc Itefercnce Court in thcsc mattcrs oll account of the aforesaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question'

40.Accorclingly,theseappealsarepartlyallowedtotireexterrto[ awarding 100/o increase ovel' ancl above the market value assesscd by the Rcfcrcnce court in matters pertaining to village Bharthal and villagrl llijwasan. Wirile'treating thc appcllants of Village Pochanpur at par witJr rhc appellants of Village Bhalthal and Village lSijwasan' the appeals of LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appealsof Village Bharthal tn.npp. tto. 2g4l2O1rO & connected Appeals of Village Bi'iwasan f-n.npp. f,f o. U1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur r) a\ Page 28 of 2-9 , J thc appe,arrts of Virage'pochanpur are arso alrowed to the extent indicated above. 'ilrus, trre market value of the acquired rands of these th.ee villages in question is dererrnined @<16,50,000/_ perffi;r the Carcgory .A' lanct utd @ T14,69,600/_ per W}frr,^. [_#;l larrcis in qucsrion. &4r1r-_, 4l ' on the aforesaicr enhancement in the compensation awarded, srarurory benefits as per trre Land Acquisition Act, lgg'as explained in tlre jndgrnent reported in ,s.undev vs. aol 200r (93) orr 569 are granred, except for the period where there is a deray in fiting the appeal, Jbr r'r'hicrr period of clelay no interest on the enhanced compensation sha' bc paid' 'r'hcsc appctants would be entitred to proportionate costs. 42' "l'he abo'e oaptioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of i' thc arbrisaid tcrrns with directio' to the Registry to rernit the . c'rrpensation anrount, if any, deposited by either side with trre Iregistrar cc'c'al of-this coitrt' to thc ioncemecl Reference court. I)ecree sheets bc liccor.cl ingll, pr.cparccl, .Ianrrar.l, 06,201.2 pklr . ,-*i: -" (.gui\Il GAUR) JUDGE = Ftn rU,,. g tl.', Ylo' -1, (i *t s>l ru o{r,rr', lo;' ( o^rt't II lli: ill ;i#/jff'--.fflll,.l:r^noo.,,s or Vi|raga 'harthaI ' A App'o' ;t;;;; ; ilff:filff::i :lylff: fl:ll.j;,, PaBc 29 of zg .tv *, v " [N TI{E TIIGII COURT OF DEI,HI AT NEW DELHI -f . LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA ""' APPellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R. S.Verma, Mr'Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita'fomar,' Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and \&.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr. S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates' Mr.N. S.Negi and I\{r'H. S .Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr'.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr. S.K.Rout, Advocates ' versus I.JNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents 'fhrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Iv{r'Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms'K'Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI I Mr'Ajay Verma' Mr'S'K'Sethi' Ms' Amita Singh' i"ivrr.Bant<eyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunalsharmaand Mr.Somer I(.Seth, Advocates for DDA' * '* 'z\') coIR.AM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNII, GAUR 9RDER ot

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 75212012 (For correction\ 'fhis is an appiication for seeking typographical correction in Orcter of 6'l' JanuatY, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants ltave accepted the notice LA.App.No.t195l200U, : Page 1 v of the application. Advance copy of this application has ulr"udyd"nl givcn to rernaining counsel for the appellants. fhe typographical effor pointed out by the respondent in the decisio' of 6rl' January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the albrcsaid judgrnent the rate of compensation assessed is .per bigha,, *'lrereas it should be 'per acre,. This is not disputed by rearned counsel appearing for the appeilants. Accorclingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered.that the reference to ,per bigha, in paragraph no: 40 of LA'App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre,. Necessary corrections be czu:r.ied out forthwith. In 'ierv of the afo'esaicl, this apprication stands disposed of. .trANUARY 1.2,2072 pl<b ,{ n UNIL GAUR) LA.App.No. LLgS/2008 Page 2

Y + % -l- IN TI{E HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November trT, 20./l Pronounced on: Januar:t 06, 2012 LA.APP.9lsl2008 HARI CIIAND & ORS ..... APPellant Thbugh: 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 Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.FI. 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) ..... Respondents ]l UNION OF INDIA Through: & ANR. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi 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 for DDA o CORAM: }ION'BI,E MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR