Suraj Bhan v. UOI

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharina vs. Union of India & Anr. IL gGA JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb uN THE ftUH COURT OF DELJfl trr rw DELHi Reserved on: November 1 c, 2011 Pronounced on: Januo7y 06, 2012

(GRTI)-A) LA APP. 1195/2008 (VIELLAGE-BHARTlEiAL RANBJR S1:].ARI\1.A . Appellant Hirough: Mr. [3.S,Maan, .Mr,i mit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, ]Vis.Snita Maari, Mr. R.SVenna, Mi.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.A.nand Yadav and Ms.Aita Tomar, Advocates, Mr. Roh as, j\ d* ocate Mr.Raght.ivn#ier (lodara, Advocate Mr.NNei and MrH.S.Ra.utela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rou and Mr.B.K.R.outray, Mr.1\il.Azarn Ansari. Advocates. Mr.Panka \ 7ivek. Auvocate Mr.Rijesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and N'Ir.1)hatiaiIay ]I\'ichlava.t, Advocates N'lir.Il .S. Rauu In, Adoc.ate i\vfr.l.S..Dahiya. Advocate ]VIr.Sandccp Thakhur. Advocate Nvlr.A.tul 1 iipathe Ai.'ocaLe. Mr.N .S ..Negi and Mr. LS. R.asi Ieht, (1\dvocaes Ii respoidem in. appeals flied by IJOII) versus LNION 01 INJ)IA & ANR. i'csp()'i.dcnis I Iiiugh : ]\4r.Sanja'v Podiar.2c ')I /d\'OCa(: \V i 0 . Patha[c, I/ir.l'\'k.hjtra( idhr' and\/INevJn swain. J\4s.K.Kauniudj' Kiran. Ad\'oencs fv I AC HOT Mr.Ajv \'erira, Msiecnnsha\v Soni. Mr,J\/ Likesh K umar, Mr . K Sc hi, Mr.Pawnn Mathur. Mr. K unal Sharma, Advocare fl'i' DD/ .. .A.PP4 I 1:/2008 &. CMNo.409W2o (C'rOsS-OhjctI)s'). LAA PP. 52/200J I I A.A.PP.45 3i2008; LA.APP688/2008 C.\1 iiO .5900/2010 (C1o:. ubJecoons); i.,AAJ.69 7/2008 &. CM .No.433/200c' ... Objtions): :\ pn7n /7008 & ('f\l N 51 0/0U9

(C1i)S)lrJji . : A PP 760/20()0 •'\ j\ P'" •'\.f\;p. No. i.1J/TOJR & coi'nocled "ppIs of chug I3hIh;iI 'o\I:'o, No, 94/2o:ic & C01illecled /\ppo'ils of VhINgc iiNiirI .Ap1j. ;\'. .riT !g 8c Conn(co': APpoI! o Viaigo ocaroj,n fl . LAAPP.771/2008 & CI\4.No.425/2009 (Ci'oss-C)hjections) LA.APP.772!2008; LAAPP.773/2008 & 04.No3835/2009 (Cross-Objectioiis); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM..No.61 1 /2009 (Cross-Objections); IA.A1:)P.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1AAPP.783/2008; 1,A.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/200.8; LA.APP.. 798/2008 & (TM.No.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931 /2009 (Cjoss-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008 LA.APP.806/2008; JA.APP.8 1 3/2008 & CM.No. 1 795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.8'1 4/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.8 18/2008; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.AP1'.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.A11 P.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008;

1.A.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008: LAAPP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/201 (Cross-objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & C]\4.No.799/2009 (Cross-Ob)ections).; LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LAAPP.91 5/2008; LAAPP.95 1/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections):. 1A.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008;

1.A.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 1 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; 1,A.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & (Cross-Objections);iA.APP.993/2008.LAAPP. I 029/2008& CM.No. I 7340/2008 . (Cross-Ob)cctions) I,A.APP. 103 1 /2008 & C1\'l No. 1 7335/2008 (Cross-Objections); 1 AAPP. I 032/2008 & CM.No:599/2009 (E.ross-Objections); LAAPP. 1 046/2008;

1.A.AP1-1 . 047/2008;LA.APP. I 048/2.008& CM.No785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 049/2008 & CM.No420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008; LA.APP. 1 051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.41 6/2009 (Cross-Ohjections);LA.APP. 1 054/2008 & CM No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1 055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & CM No.752/20] 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM No.1557/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(Cross-Ohje( ,tions); LA. APP. I 060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 073/2008; 1A.APP;1 074/2008 & CM.No.6231/2009 (Cross-Objections);

1...A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 084/2008& CM.NO. 1 7302/2008 Cross-Objections); 1.A.APP. I O8C'200% & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 087/2008& CM.No.61 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 093.'2008;A.APP.] 094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; LA.APP.1 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objec.tions):f..A.APP.1 108/2008 & . CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008: LA.APP. 1 .110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 111/2008; LA.APP. 11 1:2/2008 & CM.No.383 1/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA APP. 1113/2008 & CM No.3826/2009 ((.';oss-Objections); LA.APP.. ill 5,'2008; .L.A.APP.1 116/2008; LA.APP. 1 121/2008; I A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP. 1129/200% & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); .A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/200% & CM No.566/2009 (Cr.oss-Oblections LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP. 1135/200% & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objccions); • 1 A.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 Cross-Objections); LA, APP.) 140/2008; LA.APP.1 156/2008; LA.APP.1 157/2008; LAAPP.1 158/2008 & CM.No.7774!2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1159/2008; LA.APP. 1161/2008; LA.APP. 1166/2008; LA.APP. 11 67/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1168/2008; LA.APP. Ii 70/2008; LA.APP. 11 71/2008;LA.APP. 11 72/2008; LA.A.PP. 117.3/2008; • LA.AP .P. 11 75/2008; LA.APP.1 178/2008; L.A.APP.1 179/2008; L\.APP. 1181 /2008; I .A.APP.I 1 82/2008; .LA.APP. 11 %3/2008& CMNo.6933 12009 (Cross-Objections); • l.A APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.APP. .11 86/2008& CM.No.701 3/2009 A.App. No, 195/2009 i concocted Appeals of Vilage liherthal L.A App. No. 29/1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No.113/2010 & connected AppeaLs of Village Pochaioijr I'age 2 p129 fl (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 190/2008; LA.APP.1 191/2008; 1..A.APP.1 192/2008; LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 119712008; LA..APP. 11 98/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 121 1/2008; Li-\.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP.1 21 3/2008; LA .1223 12008; APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.. P.1226/2008; CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Ol5jcctions; A.APP.1243/2008LI 23'2J2UU; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; LA. APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281 ,'2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.AIP. 1284/2008; LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.AP]P.39/2009; LA.APP.4212009 & CM.No.746/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CN. No.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; 1,A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/201 I (Cross-Objections); J.A.APP. I 08/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP. 12 1/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009; LA.A1P. 140i'2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009;

1.A APP. 1 87/2009: LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA .APP 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA. APP. 1 99i'2009; LA.APP.2() I /2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No. 7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2 10/2009 & CM.No.970/201 1 (Cross-Objections); 1A.APP.2 1 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009: 1-A.APF.2 22/2009; LA.APP.223/2009;

1.A.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227!2009; LA.AP11 .230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241 /2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP,246/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; L.A.APP.257/2009;

1..A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; i..A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; L.A.A PP.447/2009; LA.APP,458/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP 466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.48 1/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.AP.P.493i'2009; L/\.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.5062009; IA APP .507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.ApP.509/20O): .LA.A1?P.5 10/2009; LA.APP.51 1/2009; LA.APP.51 2/2009: LA.APP.5 13/2009: LA.APP.567/2009; ,A.APP.572/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.45/201 0; LA.APP.48/201 0; ,A.AP1).404/2010; LA.APP13/201 1: LA.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP.1 176,2008; 1,A.APP.1 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/200$; LA:APP.23 1/2009 . (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) ((-JRID-B) yo I?eseiveci on. Jceiiibei 08, 2011 LA.APP. 294i'2010 (VILLACE.- BUWASA1') I )EVENDER KUMAR . . . . .. Appellant Through: M.R,S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh l.I\.App. No 119/?.00$ & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I A.App. No. 24/2010 & connected Appeals of Village .Bwasaii LA.App No. I .11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpLe PS0C 3 of 29 . Advocates Mr.S.K.Solarikj and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray. Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14. 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Saniay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and iVIs.Navlin Swain, Advocates for U Ol/LAC Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout and • Mr.P,.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. • 1\4r.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,'71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOi Mr Banicey Bihar Sharma, 1\4r.Kuna! Sharrna and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP.51/2010' LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 5312010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA..APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 L.A.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP, 100/20 10 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP; 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.API. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 291/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.AP.P. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LAAPP. 3471/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 iA.APPI 350/2010 L.AAPP. 351/2010LA.APP.352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP.. 357/2010 IA.APP, 358/2010 LA.APP, 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 .. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 I APP 360'2010 IA APP 361/010 I APP 362/2010 LA APP 363'2010 LA.APP. 4051/2010 LA.APP. 406/20 tO L.A. APP. 40712010 LA,A1.P. 408/2010 LA.AlP. 409/2010 LA.A1P. 438/2010 LA.AP1. 588/2010 LA.APP. 22/2010

1.A.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 AAPF. 725/2010 LA.A.PP. 726/2010 iA.APP. 727/2010 LA.A}P. 729/2019 iA j:\ 731/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010, LA.APP. 759/20.10 LA.APP. 764/2010 ,.LA.APP. 828/201.0 LAAPP. 964/2010 I.A.APP. 286.12010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP: 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cros-objec1ions) (Relating to Notification No. F. 10(30 )'96-L& B/LA/I. 3417 dated 1112.2000' issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND .A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of ViHage Bharinal LA.App. No. 291i2.010 & ' conflected Appeik of ViPage Bijwasan !.A.App. No. 'I 1!/201.0 & conoeclod Appeals of Village POChaOJJUJ' S . (GRID-C) Decemb er

Fjnow'zcedon:januaiO62j7 LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. App'ellarits Through: Mr.B .1). Sharma, Mr. S K. Solanki and Mr.S,K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23to 26,29,30.33,36 to 40,44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61. 64, 65/2011) .Mr.R.ajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) versus UNiON OF INDIA & ANR R Through: Mr.S espondents anjay Poddar; Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar .Pathak, MrMohjtrao iadhav, and Ms.Navjin Swain., Advocates for UOi'LAC ivlr.Ban]<e\' Bihari Sharma, ]Vir.Kunal Sharma' and Mr. Somer K. Seth, Advocates for DDA: LA.APP. 111/2010 LA.APP. 160/20 10 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 254/201 0 LA.APP. 292/201 0 LA.APP. 307/2010 LA.APP: 395/2010 LA.APR 420/2010 LA.APP. 466/201 0 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010

1.A.AiP. 91 9/2010 LA. AP1. 65/2011 LA.APP. 120/2011 L/ APP. 4 76/2 011 LA.APP. 523/20 11 LA.APP. 536/2011 LA.AP1. 154/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 317/201u LA.APP. 396/2010 LA.APP. 4322010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 639/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LA.APP. 1 052'20 1 0 LA.API. 116/2011 LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 485.i'2011 LA.APP. 525/2011 LA.APP. 554/2011 LA.APP 155/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.A.PP. 249/2010

1.A.APP. 261/2010 LA.APP. 305/2010 LA:APP. 392/2010 L.A APP .397/2010 LA.APP 433/2010 LA.APP. 577/2010 LA.APP. 640/2010 LA.APP. 741/2010 [t, APP. 784/2010 LLAPP 61/2011 LA.APP. 117/2011 LA.APP. 129/201 T.A.APF. 5211201) LA. APP. 5 2 6/201 1 LA.APP. 591/2011 LA.APP. 156/201 0 LA.APP, 21 5/2010 LA APP. 25 0/2010 LA.APP, 270/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 LA.APP. 393,2010 LA•.APP. 412/2010 LA.AIJ. 434/2010 LA.API>. 635/2010 LA APP. 657/2010 LA.APP. 75:/2010 !.,A.APP 918/2010 LA.APP. 64/2011 LA.APP. 119/2011 LA.APP, 429/2011 LA.APP. 522/2011 LA.APP. 535/2011 J.App No, 1.19512008 & connected Appeols of Vilisge BIiarthj 'L App. No. 294/2010 & connected ApeaJs of ViHsge Bijwasan LA./\pp No 1.1.112010 & coriected Appe5Is of Vif age POc8anur.

(Relating to Notification No. F. 1 0(30)96-L& B/LA/i 3417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, I)elhi) CORAM: H.ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012 Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these hunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to A/ot//Ica f/on No.F. 10(3096-L& 13/LA./1341 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. Acquisition process for planned development of Dwarka Phase-1/ in i)elhi, commenced with the issuance of IVbti/Ical/on Of 13th December, 2000 under Section 4 o the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertalning to vast tract of agricuilurai land in one compaci biock comprising of thirteen Revenue 1/states including villages in quction, i.e., Bhai'i.hal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur. Agricultural land of the appellants hercn in the afi.'resaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003• Award No.28/2002-2003 ;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation l 3.82 laos per acre for Block 'A' (level field with top soil) auid 12:32 laos per acre for 13 lock '13' (without top soil). . Disatisiied with the assessment of market value of their acquired • A App. No. 1195/2006 & conneded AppoJs of Village Bharthal I App. No. 29d12010 & connected Appeak of Village Eiijwasan .J.App. No. 11112010 & conner,te Appeals of Village Pochanpur . Pagc 6 of 29 S agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ Z15.00 lac.s per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ZI.3.36 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 .l..acs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of dccsIons in Lxecutwe Engineer, .Karnatu/, housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors,, (2011) 2 SCC 246; AnjaniMoltj ,Dcssai vs. State of Goa andAnr, (201 0) 13 SCC 710; Subh Rum and Ors i's. State of Harwiia and Anr,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthaia (Dead), through LRs. Vs Special.' Tehsiidar (Land Acquisition) & (ks, (201 0) 3 SCC 661; Ran'i'ir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Ghindha Fakira Patil

(1)) through LRs i's. The Special Laid Acquisition Officer, Jaiguon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of India2002 (62) J)RJ 227; Runw A/and (since deceased) 1hxo ugh LRs i's, Union. of India & A or., 2002 (65) DRJ I (DB); Lid/ia Doss vs. Stilte of J-Ii'ana & Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas i's. State of Pun/oh & Ors 2011 (9) SC Al J.; 362; A vinash Dhai'aji A1aik fe. State of M'tha,'ashfro, (2009) 1 1 SCC 1 7 1; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. Stile of ,

Haryana & .Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; WP. No. 4143/2003 titled as Soil, indu Khorana vs. Gram Sob/ui & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & ':Anr vs M.K. Raifiq Saheb, (20]. 1) 7 5CC 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhui and ors i's. Executive Engineer, LA..App. No. 1:1950008 & connected Appeals of ViHage Bha,tha IA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village [iijassn A.App. No 111,201.0 t connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ' . . Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424: Haryana State Industrial Deveiopineit corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors V. Union of India & Anr, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Chand vs. Union of India and Anr, (2009) 15 scc 769; General Mwuiiger, 011 and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshhhai Jivanbha.i Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Va11iammcd and Anr vs. Special Tebsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 sc 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Aliahahad Development Authoritp 9 (2004) 10 scc 745; Mahesh Dattqtra.' Tlzirthkar vs. State of Maharas/itra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors, V. Union f india & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P. No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Sing/i vs. Del/il Development Authority & Anr, decided on 24.04.2008; Om • Prakash dead by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 sec 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) Ii SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59,'2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of liulla, decided on 07.0,201 1; and B/i ale R(ym vs. Union of, India, 2010

(170) DL T 371. On the strength of the aibresaid dCCjSOS, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan. leamet arguing counsel fbr the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to he first understood in order to appreiatc its potential which must he adudgcd keeping in viw the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the. near thture alone. It was pointed Out by Mr.RS icmar, coutsc1 ioi' appellants iiat Delhi-RcwariJodhpur broad gage raivay line of Village Riijwasan passes through the land of Village .Bharthal, dividing it into two pai1s i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the 1(11 Airport, New Delhi J\.App. rIo: 11 0/2Ooa & Coonoctod Apperds 61 Vilisge Bhrth /\App. No .291/2010 & connecd AppeIs of ViP,80 Bjwrissn .A.App. No. 11.1/2019 & Connected Appeels of Vile80 Pochenpur Pelgc. 8 of 29 P__~ and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 1.00 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Miirti towards Dwark.a Sub-City Part-i and Part-Il again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed Out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel tbr the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of 101 Airport in the year .1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Pctiolcum and the lands of Village BhaTThal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of I)wark.a Phase-I and the iand.s on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and I)hool Siras were also acquired for the development el Phase-ii I)warka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks si2ras/map to highlight that the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur . and Yillage I)hool 'Siras are Contiguous. It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land j the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of iNotilication of 16 October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed .frhri agriculturai to residel]tial/ cornmerca1/industriai, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthai ha.d ceased to be rural in view of the Notdcation of 24 ° October, 1994.

It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout 5 learned COLIr1SCI for the appellants that the aibresaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama !\./\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A App..No. 294/2010 & corinectea Appeals of Village Bijwasan App. No. I 11/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Pochenpur . ., Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Who Doss vs. State of Hwyana & Ors 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must he adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a neai- future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sh.arma, learned counsel for th e appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therejti varied from Z52 Jacs to Z62 lacs and merely hccwse of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot he thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in .Anjwri Mo/u .Dessai vs. State qf Coo aiIUIAnI, (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to he taken as representing the arkei price of the land which comes to T57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale iflstances, therefbrc, reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum 1 ,ates/ . cjr-cjo rates fOr detcmiining the market value of the acquired land is patently eltoneous. 1 J. Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara learned counsel for the appollailts , On the basis of the L& DC rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the (Iovernmril for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in vjew the JocatiOi, situation and Potentiality of the acquired land, dctëriyinatjoi' of its market value is LApp No, 1195,'2008 & CoflflCctodAppc5 of Village Bhar1hal LA..pp. No, 294'?QiO & connected AppeaI5, of ViHage Bijwesan LA tpp No. r1J/2Qo & connected Appeals of VilIag0 POchanpu , PSge 10 01 29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the IA DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on, the basis of the Pre.- Determined Rates (PI)Rs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant Impulse India Private Limited of i.A. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- a). Jgnóres the acknowleclgement on the pail of the respondent about the Award AI.2612002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 beink flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petit/on iv. 19012 of 2006. (Reftrrecl to in crossexaminatio,'i of appellant dated

7.7.200) h) Does not account/br the tici t1at the Public Aiice dated 18.9. 1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area fr more than :15 yecirs before the Notcation tinder, Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was ssued. c Valuing the land on the hsis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued &v the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid doi;n by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the lion 'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Thhsildar, 2( '10(3) 8CC 661. d) ignores the evidence and other factors which as per established law has to he cons idered be/thee ascert a/nt the value of the land under .acquisiiion. e,) Does not deal with disporitv in volue of the Sale Deeds roduced before the ti-ia! Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon 'h/c Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Eci k/ru ,Patil versus Special Lana' A cquzsition Qfflcer, Civil Apea/ ]Và. 5475 of 2007. The f/on 'ble Supreme Court has .s77eclflcall),' held that Sale Deed showing higher rates hould not he disregarded in IA..pp. No. 1195/2008 & conrIrcfod Appools of Viilage f3hnrthl LA.pp. No. 294/20119 & connoctod Appods of ViHg0 I8jwasan LA.T,Op. No. 1.11./2010 & connected Appeak of V9Iage Pochanpur Pago 11 of 29 S . case the average sale price is tower. Euriher in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also hld that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of diffrrent types of sales transactions should he considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No. 97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value oft/i.e land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and Z13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon 'h/c Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) 5CC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment • 'refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 fi

• amed on 27.2.2007. Evaluated the land as agricultural land alt] o'tgh vide iVotificat ion of the Municijal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bhartha/ was changed and these areas ceased to he agricultural, and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notiicat!on S of Government br land use change show that .th future land can be sthjected to residential, commercial and ot/er permissible uses. it is also perrinent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in respect of the 74" amendment: of the Constitution of India.. r, e:f 1.6. 19.93 IX A, by vrtu'e of which the Muncipat Coiporation Act was W amended and the area where ti-me land is situated, was deemed a mnunicial area and the municipal Counsellor - was elected from there. IVo Panchayat etecttons were held in the area. Ii) Refused to apply the law laid down in All? Supreme Court 347, Ranvir .Sii'igh and' Any vs. Union of' India and refused to consider the /ict that the development in the area has a direct eèci on the 17r'ice that a. willing /7urChaSer would pay for the 8u17(xt la.i-ul. /) ignored the jct thai Repo'iden/ No. 2' had also IA App. No. 119517.008 & connected Appeals of Village Bliarthal l.A/pp. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Biiwsan App. No. 1,11/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ' ' • S auctioned similarly sitz.-iciied lc?nci as commercial blocks at the rate of about Z2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. j The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly sittiated land. k Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of D-'arka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and 13 ha rti a! was ch:anged and thee areas ceased to be agricultural, and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I I) Ignored NotUications dated 1610.2000 and 24.10.1994 • ct/though they clearly esiablish the commercial potentiality, of the said land. In Sangunt'hala v. Tahsiidar

(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the foci whether the land has got building potentiality to he used fr building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. in) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treaied as house sites. The ianc/ were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoin inc lands have the potential c?f • being put in better use as house sites in the near ftiture. In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have been provided With a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. SuppJementiig the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellaiits, it was urged by Mr.Ana.nd Yaday, Advocate that the effect of No. 115,'2008 & connected Appeak of Villege BhrtheI •pp. No. 794/2010 & connected Appeels of VUlage Bwesn I Ai\pp, No. 111/2020 & connectod Appeek of Villege Pochappur , urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesk .Datatray Thi,thkai vs. Stwte of MaIurashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mebra (Major Genera!) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & A nr, 1 76(2011) DL:1' 361 and that Pre-

i)etcrmined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have • been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands, Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting juit, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is soughi in these appeals.

¶15Arguing thecross-objections fiId by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged thatthough as per Section 51 ---A of Land 4c'quisitton Aci 1894 1 a certiflcd copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot he taken as relevantevjdencc for determination of the market value unless and until the same is • properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village ci e. are al so required to he considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegdlly rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in i/ui La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Sapai & Ors vs. Unin of India, (1997) Ii SCC 423; La! Chand vs. (Inion of India and Am'.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; L.A. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of.India, decided on 26.09.201 1, it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be take/n to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the. seller LA.App No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VIIge BharthI IA,App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof Village Bijwasn L.App. No .1l.I./2.0].0 & connected Appesk of Village Pochanpur

-. Page 14 o129 a T~~ and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a highei pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swain! Salsang, I3eas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& 1)0 ratcs/Pre-

i)etcrmjncd Rates cannOt be coulitel-janced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate 13neh of this Court in Sushi! Kurnar (supra) and Raj Siugh (supra).

¶16So 1r as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross objectbrs that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Coup,, as in Suhii Kurnar (supra) appreciatjoi 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancetnent from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and So, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the cnhueemcnt by the Rcfercne Court while taking Into eo.nsicicratioi the a. .)prec.iati()1 per annum and the same deserves to he brought in line while granting appreciation @ iO% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17Aftei-considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned judguieni, the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to a willing .App. NC). 119/;oo8 conhiCctpc Appes of Village BhE)rthjj Li\.App. No. 294/2010 & connectod AppeJs of ViIIap,(C Bijwasan I..1.App. NO. 1:112010 & COnnecrt).d Appeal, of Vliage Pochanpur Papa 15 of 2:9 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of lliai aiw & Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:-

(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or • the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population; . (ii) the suitability of the qcqufred land for putting tp the buildings, he they i"esiden[ial, commercial or industrial, as thecase may be; (/ü) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply/hr occupants of buildings to he put up on that land; absence of statutory impediments or the like fhr using the acquired land/br building purpose; existence of highways, pub/ic roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity, or close proxi)1zLtv of the acquired land; benefits or advaniuges of educational institutions, health care centrs, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, /f built on the acquired land and lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in dth'nancl far building purposes, to - speclfj.' afew.

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of fctors. For the said purpose, the Court may riot only have 1.0. bear in mind the purpose for A App. No. 1195/7008 & connected Appeals of Village E3hsrthl A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwsan A App. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . which the lands were sought to he acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the releyant factors for deterrninatjop of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court • in Atina Singh (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not he a ground to discard them especially • when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Spethil Land Acquisition Qfflcer & Anr vs. M.K. RaJkj Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospets, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similai'ly situated lands and the acquired land. It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decisiOn of the Apx Court in Kiran Tando; (Supra) can be relèrrcd to with advantage. 2 I. Apex Court in Vall/yanunal (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, ete,, had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mo/u Dessni (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under: l.Af\pp. No. 1.1.05/2008 & connected Appeals of Vifage Bhartha; It App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village llijwasari LA.APp. No. 1.1 1/201.O.& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 170129 * 'The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar land, usually the higi'zest of the exemplars, which is a hona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of sun//ar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly dijfrrent, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissiin i/ar lands or , that the lower va/tie sale is on account of under-valu,tion or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot he resorted to.

¶22It woLild be worthwhile to take note ol the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindini Fakira Pcdil (Supra), which are as fo1lOYs: 'It is well settled that genuine and hona fde sale transactions in respect of the lad under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possesslng similar , value or utilitY taken place between a .willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value." .140

¶23Principles to determine the mirket value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Gorporation Ltd

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on Jur factors - s/that/on of the' land, nature of development in surrounding area, avai1abilit.' q/ land /àr development in the area, and the demand for icind in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the v/c/n/tv, increase /n prices would he slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. LA.App. No. I .95/2008 & connected Appeals of ViIage Bhartl,al .A.App. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Elijwas5ri LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpw' On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extieme, in remote rural areas where thei'e was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant djfference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in mcfrkei vi.iue of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the incr'ease in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the co rrespon ding increases in rural areas would at best be onli around half of it that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. fYi/s rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and spec'fic evidence relating to increase in prlces. Where there are special reasons for applying a higIiei' rate of increase, or any specfIc evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to he applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providIng appropriate escalation over the proved, market vaiu of necirby londF in prevlous years (as evidenced by sale transa(1-tions or acquisition), 'where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale trcínsactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neigh said method is reasonably safe where th d-on-saie transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only aew yedis, that is upto lit 10five years. Beyond that it may be unsaft', even i/it i'elates to a, 'iei'ghbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the c,p is on!)' a •fe'l.' years, may become l../nscr/C and unreliable standard vi;'here the gap is larger. For example. jar determining the market value of' a land acquired. in 1992, adopling the annual increase method

1.3.' /t/1, "ejerence to ci sale or A./\pp. No. 1 195'200l & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.Apo. No. 29/1/2010 & cornected Appeals of Village Biwasan .A.App No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanp',r P-age 19 UI 29 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pilfails. This is because, over the course of yea KS, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence oJ varying periods 0/stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard 0/increase." I ~ 24: This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), reardi ng computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods: What was said by the Apex Court in J-1STDC (Supra) is as under:- • When different categories of iai'ids (or lands with different viluatlonai advantages) are acquired for the same purpose,. say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with re/erence to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation shOuld he awarded for all (ands acquired under the same notification. Undisputedly, in these appeals sal.e exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal. Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Viila.e Pochanpur. .C;, the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Rod/ia Swami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanur at a price which varied from 52 la.cs to 62 lacs per acre. Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (lix.PW-. 1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) which are basically between one set of co-owners and Radha Swami Salsan l3eas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in.Vil.lage Pochanpur reflect the correci maiket value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemi3lars, i.e,, Sale Deeds No. 1195/2008 & conhiocted Appeals of ViUage 13harthai No. 294/2010 & connected AppaIs of \/iIlage Bijwasan ,o. No. .111/2010 & Connected Appeals ol village Pochanpur ' . ' P a pe 20 of 29 I (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from Z52 lacs to T62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars Sale I)eeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the saiñe market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot he treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vie Sale Deeds (Ex.PW.-l./4 to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purcliaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purciiaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, •then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Saisang, .Becis who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of ]and at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale I)eed executed on 2:5 March, 2000 was also subject matter in L.A. App. No. 266/2008 titled as fat Sing/i vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. , No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh i's. Union of India9 decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of ViIlae Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative pric,e for the acquire.d lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to thir acquisftion but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their acquisition. Thus, it becomes evidcn.t that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knovledge of prevailing LA.App. NC). 1195/2008 & connected Appeak of VllIg n ljharthal LA.App. No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No.111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 210129 market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration, and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Dceds (.Fx.PW-1/4 to lix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (E.PW-1/1. 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale I)eed of 27111 January, 2000, it needs to he noted that because this sale exemplar (Lx.PWi/1 1) was situated on the National Highway -8 and because vide Sale Deed 0Fx.PW-1/l 1) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefre, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot he treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question. Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& 1)0 circular rates for the developed lands and .Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DD.A ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acqwred lands in question. Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its d.ecision'rcported as 1 Rain Reddy and Ors, p. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad (ithan Development Aut/writy , Hyderuhad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-

¶12however, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potential jtv with re/erence to the price fetched by sale o/ plots in a welt developed layout in the neighborhood .1 A.App. No. 1105/2008 & corinoctodAppp]!s of VUNge BhariiiaI I &App. Nc. 294/201.0 & conricctcd Appeails of Villago Bijwasan A.fpp. No. 111/2010 & connocted Appeals of Viflage Por.hanpur S or whether it he the determination of the market value u/the acquired land with building potentiality, with reference to the price/etched by sale of building plois in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes ineitabie far the Court to find out what will be the price ftiched or to be fetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any u/the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have/etched if sold on the date of the publication of the preliminary not ifIcation under Section 4 (1) 0/ the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market value of the acquirecL land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Aci according to the adual use to which it was put and increase its vahe by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exced 1151h of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for sz.ich building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demana as such, for building plots even if/armed in the acquired land.

¶31In view Of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the 1.)I)A after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! (hand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advjsable to rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-Detcrrnjned Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! (band (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jài Sing/i (SLipra) and Sushul .Kuinar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of I A.App. No.1 .i9i/200N & Connected Appeals of Village L5harthl .A.App. No. 294120:10 & connected Appeals of Village liijwasan y\./\pp. No ....1.1/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the I)DA's Pre-I)etermined Rates foralternate allotments for flxi;ng the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development, of I)warka Phase-I. It was sought to he argued by Mr.Sanjai Poddar, learned Senior counsel for the respo.ndent/cr0ss_objector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of l 0% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervenim the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notiflcation for development of Dwarka Phase-il, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by ti-ic Reference Court is unjusiifled. .

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in. view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! ('hand (Supra). cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in 'assessmem of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may he a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a fw years, ma).' become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap i larger. in the instant case, th e gap heween the two Notifications, i.e.. of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-Il is of sixteen years and therefore, it would he unsafe to adopt the -- mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate Lf\App No, 199/2003 & conn'cled Appeals of VWagp Bharthel LA.App. No. 294/2010 & cono(cted Appeals of VWap,e l3ijwasan LA App. No. 1.J.2/201p & c0000ctt-d APpCaIS of Village Pochanpur Page 2401 29 escalation over the market value of the nearb: land of the previous yea:rs. Mr. .Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! .Kurnar (Supra), has granted escalation cI I O% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi! Kuinar (Supra), [ find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acqiiired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying . upon Sushil Kuniar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court 12% per annum cannot he reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed. Now what is to he •seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in I)elhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria •for determining the mtket value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the nilnimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. I April 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not. Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertajning to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to - be an agricultural land by virtue of Notirication at 24 lii October, 1 994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be L!rhan. his true that vide aforesaid Notihcation 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. I 1.95/200-8 K. connected Appeals of Village Bhartfeu .A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasn LA.Apo, No. 1:1/20,10 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

. , presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question.. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Salsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultuta.l purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the Issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. I-lad there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of theii use post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid their hand,s on other sale instances in the area in question. i3ut, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samall(ha (Ex.PW-1/1I) without leading any evidence to cstablisli that the quality and Potentialily of the sale exemplars of Radha Si'i.'ami Sceisang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Sarnaildia (Ex.PW-1/1 I) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of \'illage Samalkha . (Lx. PWl/i 1) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensation while rch'inp, ujon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of thedOme-referred dictum of the Apex Court in ilaryana State Industrial Developine,t Corpora tion (JlSJ!c (Supra), uniform rate of compensatiOn deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the Ui in un urn J?rice fixed by the Uovci-ñni ent for the agricultural land in Delhi. which generally factors in the rise, of price due to higher potentiality; Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what r.,pp No. 1195/2008 & connectcd Appoak ofvillage Bharthal No. 294/20j,p & COI'Ifloctpd Appeak of ViHage Bijwsn 1 pp. No. 11117010 & conntpd Aopos of ViHage Pochanpur . . Pe 26 of 29 would he expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been he]d to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in .Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kunurr (Supra) and I find. no reason to take a different view than th one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jui Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kunuir (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in I)elhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matte:r of Village Bharthai and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity ozI: the JUT Airport., Indian. Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway lihó passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 met'rs vide road starting from N.FI-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-CIty, Part I and Part Ii, di\/i.ding the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm ilouses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account 01 aforesaid locational advantages, 'the acqujred lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity Iof Dwar]ca Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10 increase over and above market value of the acquired lands• as assessed by the Referetice Court on account :f the higher building potentiality in the aéquiied lands is the A,\pp. No. 119/2008 &•connectod Appejls of Village i3harthal AApp, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village [9jwasan I AApp. No: U 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 27 01 29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Naush erwwi K/urn vs. Gollector, (1975)1 SC C 238, ii these words:-. "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality

¶39Considering the fa6t that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters hf assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the (iovernrncm' s minimum prices Ir the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands difierently and so, appellanis of Village Pochanpur are treated at pai- with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushi! Kwnar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the market, value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court in these matters on account of 'the aforesaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding I O% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bhartha,l and Village .Bijwasan. While ti -eating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of I .App, No. 11.95j2e,08 & corIn(ted ppea of VitIgo Rharth,J .App. No. 29'1/2010 & con necte&Appea Is of village BIjwsri App No. 1:11,20.10 & connected Appe,Is of ViHge Pochnpür the appellants of Village .Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined @ 16,50,000/- per ,bigh4 for the categOFINI I lcmcl and 14,69,600/- per bigha ioi the Category '13' lands in question. h-4 1 On the afbrcsaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, slain tory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in Sunder vs UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granied, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for WhICh period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall he paid. .ihese appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above captioned appeals and cross--objections are disposed of in the aLresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the Compensation amount, if any, depoited. by either hide with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Refernce Court. I)ecree sheets he accord inJv prepared. - - (SUNJIL GAUIR) January06, 20 2 pI< h LA.App. No. U)5/2003 & connected Appea's olVilloge Bharthal

!App. No. 29417010 & connected Appeels of \iiflsge Bijwssan A.App. No 1/200 & connected Appesk of ViHage POchsnpur Page 29 cr29 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ± LAAPP. 1195/2008 RANBIR. SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr,B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms. Smita Maan, Mr.R. S .Verrna, Mr.J itin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for # respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R. S .Tornar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr;S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and 0 Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR • ORDER

12.012012 C.M. AppL No0 752/2012 (For correctio). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6th January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appeUants have accepted the notice. LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6hh1 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforcsaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph n 40 of L.A.AppNo 1195/2008, be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be ci±ied out forth.wjth In view of the afhi'esaid, this application stands disposed of. * p JANUARY 1.2, 2012 JUDGE pkb :0 LA.App.No. 1195/2 008 . . Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI S Reserved on: November/(.201] Pronounced on: Januay 06, 2012 LA.APP. 1241/2008 SURAJ BHAN Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus 1Th4JON OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh K.umar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR