Manish Kumar & Ors v. UOI & Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma V5. Union of India & Anr. -.===t^&ILGAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. t t V. (J / (GRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-EHAMT IN THE HIGH CO'lIRT OF DELMI AT NEW DELHI K^JM'XedQniNoyjim^^ 1/ Pronounced on;jLqmgi:yJ)6^20]2 RANBJRS1:1A1^1A Appelkint Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.ArnitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash,'Ms.Smila Maan, Mr.R.SA''enT!,a,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.AjiandYadav and Ms.AnitaToniar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghiivinde)- Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S..Negiand'Mr.H.S.Rautela. Advocate Mr.S.K.Routand.Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj "V'ivek,,Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.]3eepakKhosla, Mr.SamitKhosla and Mr.]3hanarijay .Mehlawal, Advocates Mr.H.S.Kaiiiela, Advocate Mr.I.S.IJahii'a, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhnr. Advocate Mr.Atiil Tripathi, Advocate, Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.lLS.Ranleia,(.'\dvocatesfor respondentin appi^alsfiled by UGl) versus IjMION()!• INDIA& ANR. .Respondents 'Hiruugh: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAd\-ocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak,Mr.Moinl.rao,.Tadha-vami M.s.NavlinSwain. Ms.K.KaunuidiKirtin;Advocatesfor [..^C/iJOI Mr.AjayVeripa,'Ms'.BecnashawSorii. Mr.Mukesli Kumar, Mr S,K.Se[lii,Mr.Pawan Mathnr. IVir.Kunal Sharmn. Advocate .fcx DDA I..A,.A,PP,4].2,'2008& CM.No"4096/2!)0b (Cress-Objections).f.A APP 4-^''^/"".'008-I.A.A!'P.453/2.)()8;LA,AI>l>,688/20(ia.t (;:V!.fio.5<)90/20)0((•ross.Obiccl.ionsi; i.,A,Ai'l',(>97/2CKI8& CM,No•'4,33,^200''' irro.s.s"0bjcction3):LA.APP.7yi/2!3i)8& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections): I. "v APF.768''20()8; i.A.APP.770/2008:, !.A.App. IVo, 1lUb/:'008&coiMiccled/^pponisofViilago BhiirlJuil !.V.Adp, No. (i t:oniu!CiedAppool.^oi'Village:Bi!w;,ijn I,f\.App, ,i"l:i.,':n):iO&CQt;nr-a<:dAppe;):.sof Viilagci-ochanDiif ' • I Oi Z9 f t LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2()08 & CM,No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA..APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.783/2008; LA.APP,784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; •LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & ' CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.9] 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.S 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; • LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections),LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; ].,A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& ,CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008; LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No.l557/20n (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); J.,.A.APP.1075/2008;-LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Obiections); . LA.APP.1084/2008&' CM.No.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.y\PP. 1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);, LA.APP.H 11/2008; LA.APP. 1112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objectioas); LA.APP. 1] 13/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.APP.ll 16/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; LA.APIM126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); ^ L.A.APIMm2008; LA.APP.l135/M-J^^-CMJ^xi^7A42^ (Cross-Objections); t.A.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objectio^LA.APP.l140/2008; ^LA7VPP.115672DUS;LA.APirrTy772008; LA.APP.l158/2(M& CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.1166/2008; LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008; LA.APP.l170/2008; LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.l]73/2008; LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.l179/2008; LA.APP.11 81/2008; LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933./2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.APP.l 186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 IA.App. No. ] 1.95/7.008& connected Appeal.sof Village Bharthal I.A App. No. Z9'i/?.0.10& connected Appeal.sofVillage Bijwasan l.A.App.No. :i.1,l/;',010&connecleclAppealsof VillagePochariDur' Page or 23 I"! (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008 LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP.l 194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP.l 197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.12] 3/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& .CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009;' LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.7103/2009, (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP,135/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No. 7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA. APP.45 8/2009 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.l 176/2008 I LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA. APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Obj cctions);

1.A.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; l.,A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; I.A.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; y,A.APP.507/2009; l.A.APP.511/2009; l.A.APP.572/2009; l.A.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP.199/2009;' LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009;, LA.APP.230/2009 & LA. APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245,/2009; I LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA. APP.466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; . LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.13/2011;

¶1LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009: LA.APP.513/2009; LA. APP,45/2010; A.APP. 1138/2008; I.A.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; 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) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 I.A.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN), DEVENi:)BR KUMAR ...... Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh l.A.App. i\io ,119.'j/^.0O8& connected Appeals of Village Bhai'lh;;! , '.A.App,No. 294/2010& connKci'cdAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l-A.App, No. .1.11/2010& connectedAppealsof Village Pochanpur Pago 3 of 29 \ t 9^0 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA.APP r.-A.APP .1-,A.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP., LA.APP. LA.APP. . 52/2010 . 56/2010^ . 100/2010 . 242/2010 . 282/2010 . 287/2010 . 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sail]ayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navhn Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Baiikey Bihar Sharraa, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. Ll/2010 ' LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 28,8/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 35],/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 . LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 , LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP, 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP.55/2010 LA./\PP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 -LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 407/2.010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828,/2010 •LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & oss-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 Sc Award No 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND ' • • • )-A,App. No. .ligrVZOOS& connectedAppnalsofVillagG BharlhnI J-A.App. No. 294//010& conncctndAppealsof Village Bijwasan .. t;A.App. No. llj/MlO & con.nGcU'd-AppealsofVillaRPPorhanpLir ' ' ' '. • . . Page 4 of ?.9 • \ •% t f (GRID-C) >1 Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 I.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through; Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharraa, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33,36 to 40' 44 to 49, 59, 63 to71) Mr.S.B-Kumar,Advocate for appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents 'Mr.SanJayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sahjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain. Advocates forUOI/LAC , Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shaniiaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. LA. AFP LA.APP LA.APP J.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 111/2010 . 160/2010 ., 228/2010 .254/2010 .292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/201]' . 154/2010 . 165/2010 . 248/2010 .260/2010 . 293/2010 . 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011

485./2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 155/2010 . 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201] 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ^LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP, 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 9] 8/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429,/201] 522/2011 535/2011 l/v.^pp. No, l,1.95/?.008&conncctGdAppeaLsofVillageBharthal LA"'\pp, No. 294/2010&connGctGdAppsalsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App, No, 111/2010&conripctedApppalsof VillagePoclianpur. t I (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 8c AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochailpur,'r)elhi)' ORDER . '

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, thcreiorewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 relatinp O to, geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and I ochanpurare beingdisposedol b}' this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- // in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agiicultuialland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@?13.82 lacs per acre for )3iock 'A' (level field --with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwitli tlie assessmentofmarketvalue oftlieiracquired U.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppnals.ofVillageBharthal. I.A.App. No. ;>9'V?.010&connoctGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ."age 6 of 29 t t a-i agriculturallands, appellantshad sought reference under Section 18 df the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acrc for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whcjreas, refcrences relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

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

(2010) 13 sec 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Am-.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors.^ (2010) 3 SeC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Pat.il

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Ckakas vs. State of Punjab Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362-,'Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No, 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010'; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.IL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors ra. Executive Engineer, iy\.,App.No. .115.')/^008 cunn(!cU!d Appeals of Village [jharthai i.A.App. No. 7.94/;'.010& connecled Appeals of Village Bijwa,san iA.App. No in/20.10 & connect(!d Appeals of Village Pochanpur ' • '• % Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15-, RisalSingh& Ors. Fs. UnionofIndia Anr,, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChand Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tamlon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. 'State ofMaharashtra,"AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011) DLr j61; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority &. Anr.,^ decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC627; Satpa! & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar ra. Union ofIndia, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 tided as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decided on 07.06.2011;and EkuleRam vs. UnionofIndia, 2010

(170)DLT371.

¶6On the strength of the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationol the a;quiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannot be limited to the near Mure alone.

¶7it was pointed out by Mr.Il.S.'romar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewaii-Jodhpurbroad gage ra passes through the land of Village Bh way line of Village Biijwasan arthal, dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayIhie is the IGI Airport,New Delhi lA.App. No. 1195/2003&connectedAppealsofVillage Bhaiiha! ' IA.App, No. 391/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Uljwasan IA.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof Villagt!Pochanpur ' Page 8 of 7.9 t f •2-i J and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthalwas first acquired for the extension ol IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsandthereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslm'AX)to highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous. 8; It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16^"' October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agriculturaT to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notilicationof24^'' October,1994,

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. iV\.App. No. .1195/:'.008& connficlHdAppealsof Village Bharthal I.A.App.,|\Jo.?.94/?,010& conneclodAppcraisofViliafjeBijwasan LA,App. !v)o, ].1]/;!010&conneclodAppealsof VillaBG Pochanpur Pago9of ZS % f Redd,& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hydembad&Ore, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Vdho Dass vs. StateofHmyam, &Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiodof time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquishton,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it would not meanthatthe]"e is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Rehaticewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appeUantsupon the seven Sale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom 752 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there ,s no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued becauseof any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMotuDessai vs. Stateof(Joa mdAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplarsoughtto be taken as represemingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 iaes per acre and since the sale exetnplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the Kefei-eneeCourt uponthe minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentofmarketvalue of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.(;odara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson tire basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor alloUrtem of alternate' plots ,n the year2000-2001.Keepingin vtew the location,situationand potent,al.tyof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is lAApp. m. 1.19V2008&connoctGdAppealsof Vill.Pc.Bharth.l •App No.llj,.oio&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur % t sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited of,LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the A^iard No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.]0.2002 being flaM'ed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) h) Does not account for the faci that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the Govermnentof National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the laM> laid. down by various decisionsincludingin one of the m.ore recent decisions of the Hon'ble Sup'rem.e Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar: 2010(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining the value ofthe land under acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced,before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble Siiprem.eCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deed shoMnnghigher rate shouldnot be disregardedin i-A.Aiip.No. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage lihnrlhal LA.App. No. Z94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage!iijwa.san 1-A.App.No. 1.11/2010&connectedAppeal.?of VillagePochanpur t 2-S case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai v^". State of Goa, 2010(13) .SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should, be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC .No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land, is much, higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation •of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh. Ham v,y. State of.Haiya.na 2010(1) see 444. As a consequence, the. impugned judgment • refused to return an actual jinding on the issue No.1 frcnnedon

27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification, of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land, use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for land, use change show that in future land, can be subjected, to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74^'^ amendment' of the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX'A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land, is situated, M>a.s. deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Panchay.at elections were held in. the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR. Suprem.e Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and .Anr v^. Union of India and refused to considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser would,pay fcjr, the-subject land. ,

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had alsw LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connncted Appeal.sof Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 291/?.010& connncted Appealsof Village Bijwa.san LA.Apf?. No. 111/2010&connoctndAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pagp 12 of29 % f auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is w'hollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated, land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityof change of the use of the land although the land M'as acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthul was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v, Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held, that theptirposefor which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the propert)^ acquired the fact whetherthe land has got buildingpotentiality to be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied bv the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired,for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in better use as housesites in the nearfuture. "

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved. Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayer that the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfof the appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnaiidYadav, Advocatethat the effectof !.A.App,Mo. 1195/2008& conn(!cledAppealsofVillage Bharthal • i.A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur ' ' • pagel3of:'9 urbanizationof tiie lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs, Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesrelied upon by the appellantsare comparableand ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ot the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled bythe Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence lor determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special lancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instancesrelied upon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand.vs, Union of India'and

(2009) 15 SCC 769; I.A. A.PP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar w. Union ofIndia, decided on 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appealsof Village Bijwasan M.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VlllagG Pochanpur ' t t I t SI and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Imowledgeof the usual prevalenttrend in the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon.by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO ratcs/Pre-DetcrmmedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidmateBench ofthis Courtin SushilKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation(?$ 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,what emergesis that the true marketvalue ' ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling •lAApp. No. U9:;/;)008&connoctndAppealsof VillageBharth-Jl -A.App. No. 294/2010&connGctadAppealsof Villaf.p13ijwa.san fMpp. No. u:l/2C10a a,nnecl.ciAppealsof VillagePochanpttr ' ^ Pagei'iofzg t f •1% seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue 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 Hmyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because oj its explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityof the acquiredlandfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, cominercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(iii) possibilityof obtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants ofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquired landfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of higlmays, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinityor closeproximity ofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few. "

¶181he potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposes dependsupon a large number of fectors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in-mind the purpose for lA.App. No. .1.195/2008& connected Appeiilsof Village Bhiirlhal LA.App. No. 7.f)4/2010& connected AppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010.& connectedAppeal.sof VillagePochanpur Papt,igof 29 % f 1'S which the lands were souglit to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma 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.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MJL Rqflq Saheb, (2011),7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhich emergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behall 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 prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land.

¶20It 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 Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to Vvith advantage,

¶21Apex'Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note of ihe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was im.proper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in Anjani Molii Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App. No.1155/200S & connccled Appoalsof Village Bharlhal [•.A.App, No, ?.9')/2010& conriGctndAppealsof Village Bijwasan LA'.App, No, ].1.1/2010& connodedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pago 1,7 of29 \ f 1'^ "The legal position is that even M'here there are several exemplars M>ith reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where hoM'ever there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a. narrow band-width, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of Pa>o sales are m.arkedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resoried^ to, "

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

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation l.,td,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps: 1A.App. No. ] iy5/i008 & connucted Appraalsof Village Bharlhtil i-A.App. No. 294/2010 & connccted .Appeals of VillaBcBijwa,S3n LA.App. No.1] 1/20.1,0& connected Appeals of Village Por.hanpur \ f 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 extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated, for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1%) or 2%) per anmim. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in. urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in. rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about SVo to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher ra.te of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value byproviding appropriate escalation, over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the_ relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is upto four tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to ci neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a. few years, may become vinsafe and unreliable standard, where the gap is larger. For exampjle.for determining the m.arkei value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with, reference to a sale or LA.App. No.11.95/2008& cannnclRd Appaalsof Village; Bh'ortha! l.A.ApD. No. 294/20.10& connncted Appealsof VillageBijwasan LA.ApD No. .11..1/.7.010& conneciedAppeal.';ofVillageFachanp'.ii-Page 19of29 I f acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the "rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease. " ,

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods:What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- 'IVhendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands Mnth different Mtuationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the sa.m.epurpose, sav for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determdnation of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided ' anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in, and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question aie not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., Radha SwamiSatsang,Beas had puichased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpar at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in lespectofthe compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 I5iswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds LA.App. No. 1.195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharlhal l.'\ '\pp. No. 2!J4/2010& conriGctndAppealsof Village Bijwasan • l7\.App. No. .l :l.l/20]0& connectedAppealsofVillage Pocha.npur \ t r-i Pr (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 ]acs to ?.62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was dependentupon the nature and situationof 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.Thereiore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treeitedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW--l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited Ixom 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 Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25"' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin EA. App. No. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siiigh ra. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands. ^7, In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their, acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App, No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsof Village Dharthal I.A.App, No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l.A.App, No. il.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 21 o( 29 t f 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 Deeds (i!)x.PW-.l/4 to l^x.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,200'0, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ji.x.PW-1/11)vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had letched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in qucslion.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Prc-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P, Ram Reddy and Ors. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "/2. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acqidred land,with buildingpotentiality y\>ith reference to the price fetched by • sale ofplots in a well developed,layout in the neighborhood IA-App. No.1195/2008 & i;()nnerleclAppeals ofVillaReBharthal l.A.App. No. 294/201.0& connpcted Appeals of Village [)ijwa,san LA.App. No. 111/20.10& conru!CtedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur ' Page 22of29 t f orwhetherithe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland, with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what y\nll be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied,upon, by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliminarynotification,under Section 4(1) ofthe Act Further,yvhere no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what could, be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired,land with reference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a. small percentage having•regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon. the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th. of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales of buildingplots in. the neighborhoodof the acquired la.nd. indicatingthai there yvas no im.m.e.dia.te dem.and, as such, for buildingplots even, ifformed in the acquired land. " •

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands, l^^ollowing the dictum of Lai Chand (Supra),a coordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfbf assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No.,l.iy:)/2008& connnctpdAppnalsofVillaguBharthal LA.App. Mo. 2H1/;?0].Q& connc;ctGdAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/20.1.0&conpRctedAppealsof VillagePochanpur p ^3 of 29 t f the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallands inquestion.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whether progressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhile takinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dv(arka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Noiificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to Eidopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What riiay be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafs and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis of sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. ] •.9!;/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l-A.App. No. 111/2.010& connected Appealsof Village Pochanpur Page24 of 13 \ cscaJationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, ' leaqied senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a cooidinatcbcnch of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), 1find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushi!Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%) per annum. In this view of the niatter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumpriceofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as Lo whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the RefeienceCouit from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.'f l" April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum,rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaiing agiiculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ol the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto I.A.App. No. ]195/2008& connectcdAppealsofVillage Uharthal I.A.App. No. 294/7.010& co.nnoctndAppealsofVillage Biiwa.san LA.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur . I'ape25 of 29 \ t bl 2-presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiahty for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Svmini Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplar of • VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/lI) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid' sale instances, llierefore,in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniform,rate of compensationdcse.rvesto be awarded ior the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price lixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. laking note of the tact that there is'a gap between what l/).App.No. .1.195/2008&conncctedAppealsnf VillageBharlhal 'LA.App.Mo. 294/20.10&connsctndAppeairof VillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 1.1.1/20.10&connsctedAppeals.ofVillagePochanpur % f would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalprice has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands inJai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushilKumar (Supra)and I find no reason to take a differentview than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Couil in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question. Mndingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,oi there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquired lands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof this Court, on accountof atoresaidlocatiojialadvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume higher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof DwarkaPhase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentialityin the acquired lands is the LA.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijvi/asan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppeal.';of VillagePochanpur Pago 27 of 29 \ IjiJ settled legal position aptiy highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NuusherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords;- "Ifhen once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up buddingsmthe immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion wou d be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein price cittribiitable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesmc to treatIhem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices lor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePoehanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in SmM/ Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovetlie marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the RelerenceCourtin _ these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages IP providingahigherbuildingpotentialityinthe acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Aecordmgly,these appeals arc pai-tly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the Rcfercnce Court in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Biiwasan.While treatingthe appellantsofVillagePoehanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof l-A.App. No. 1..1..95/2008&connnciGdAppealsof VillageBharthal l.A.App. No. ?.9t/l'0.X0&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ; lA.App. No. .1.1..1,/20K)&connectedAppealsof VillagePoehanpur Page 28 of :!9 \ I '1^ the appellants of Village Pochaiipur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,00()/-perhi^'forthe Category "A' land and @?14,69,600/.-per bj^a'forthe CategMy'B' lands in question. ^ h-)--. -^1. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptior the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, ior v^-hjchperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶421he above captionedappeals.andcross-objectionsare disposedof m the afoi-esaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar (jcneral ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb (SUNI.LGAUR) JUDGE .j-^ V"' ''' ' ' ' '• l.A.App.No. 119b/2008&connnclodAppealsof VillageBharthal l'\,App.No, 294/20.10&connyctedAppealsof VillageBIjwasan IA.App. No. 1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SI-IARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, 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.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby 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 f f UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mi'.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mi-.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. COl^M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %•

12.0L2012 C.Mo Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correctiosi). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'' January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice U.App.No.1195/2008 ~ Page1 t « ofthe application.Advancecopyoffliis applicationlias alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. Tlie typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin tlie decision of 6'" Januaiy, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants:Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App,No. 1195/2008'beread as 'per acre'. Necessary collections be cajiied out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb -JUDGE AApp.No. 1195/2008 Page cC-*" ,s-y-

\G * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA. APP. 1137/2008 MANISH KUMAR & ORS. Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) 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.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mulcesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate ^ for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR