Union of India & Anr v. Karan Singh Rana Decd Thr His Lrs

ORDER %

06.01.2012 Fororderssee LA.App.No.1195/2008,titledas 'RanbirSharmavs. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb JUDGE 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. A' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % % Reserved on: November IS, 20J / Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.l ].95'/20()8(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBJR SHAmA .....Appellant rhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr,.AmitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA'erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghnvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roul and Mr.B.K.Koutray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.PankaJ Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav.Mr.Deepak Khosia, Mr.Samit IChosla and Mr.l3hananjay MchlaAvat,Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atui Tripathi, .Advocale. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rauiela, (./AdvocatesTor respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus L'l^JlON01" IN)3IA& ANR. Respondcrris Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar,Sen/orAd^•oca^e wifh Mr.Sania> Pathak.,Mr.Moh.rtraoJadhav-and Ms.Nax'linSwain. Ms.K.KatimudiKiran, Advocates for ],,AX:/UOI Mr.Ajay Venr.a, Ms.BecnashavvSoni. IVJr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr S.K.Sethi,Mr.Pav/an Matiiiir, IVlr.Kunal Sharma. Ad^'oc;ue for i^iJA !..^.APP.4L;/2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections) f -"'i APP 4S'^P008-LA.APP.4?3/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& C;\4.No.5990/20]0(Cross-Obieclions)' i.A.A1'J\()97/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.701/;2008& CMNo.510/2009 (Cross-OtMectioas): 1. APP.768/200R; r,A.APP.770/2008; No. 119,')/7;008&coiincctedApppiilsofVillngi: ;A./\Dp. No. /W/'MncS. corim^ci.edAppt.'-jl.so'Villasc:Uiivi/jisjri lA.App. connt-aridAppeals01 Viilaf;i.-l-o(Lhanour i " , ' Pasc'loiZa t LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & 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.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM'.No.519/2009 (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; L.A.APP. 1047/2008;LA.APP.l 048/2008& 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.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections); ..

1...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..N0.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.APP. 1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Gross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.1112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objectioas); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; lA.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.l^^o,550/2009(Cross-Objeciions); LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Obiecticins); I.A.APP.1133/2008; LA.APP.l135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objeciions); LA.APP.l 137/2008 & CM.No.,17283/2008tCross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP.l 156/2008; LA.APP.l 157./2008;LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 •T.-, . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l16r/2008; LA.APPJ 166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections): LA.APP.l168/2008; _LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l171,/2008; LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.l173/2008; L.A.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; LA.APP.1179/2008;LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.! 184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP.l 18672008& CM.No.7013/2009 •1 A.App. No. :i 195/^008 & connfictedAppeal.sof VillagR Bharlha! I.A.App. No. v.91/2010& connectedAppGalsofVillageBijv/asan • " . LA.App. No. .111/2010a connnctecJAppea!.sof VillagePochaiiDur" Page?,of 29 t % (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP, 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; 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.1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); 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; .L/V:APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (CrGss-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. 136/2009; ],A. APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Obj cctions); LA.,APP.211/2009; LA.APP.224,/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.249/2009; I.,A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA,APP.511/2009; LA.APP,572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA,APP,220/2009; LA,APP,222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA,yVPP,230/2009 & LA, APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245,/2009; 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; I.,A,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; i.A,APP, 1138/2008; 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.458/2009; 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; LA.APP.l 177/2008; LA,APP.1201/2008; LA,APP.231.'2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.I0(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the l..and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002',Village Bliarthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December

¶082011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). ^ DJiVENDERKUIN4AR .....Appellant Through: .Mr.R.S.'f^Tmar,Mr.VirendraSingh I.A.App. i\io .1195/Z0C8& conneclGclAppealsof Village Rharllial IA.App. No, 294/2010& connuclcdAppcaLsofVillageBijwasan l.A..App K'o, 3.11/ZOlO& connoctedAppealsofVillage Pochanpu,' Page 3 of :J9 p t Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki 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 UOl & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.NavIin Swain, Advocates forDOI/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.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010 I.A.AFP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 ' r.,A.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296./2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351.''2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP: 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP, 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP,75/2010& C.M.No.964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.y\PP. LA.A,PP. 289/2010 ' LA.APP, LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. LA..4PP. 362/2010 LA.APP. • LA.y\PP. 407/2.010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. I..A.APP, 725/2010

1..A.APP. LA.APP. 731/2010 LA,APP. LA,APP, 764/2010 ,LA,APP, .LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2610 & o.ss-objections) 51/2010 55,'2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722,/20]0 726/2010

732./2010 828/2010 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.1.0(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND lA.App. No. ll<J5/-2008& connectedAppnalsofVillagpBharthnI l-A.ApD. 1Mb. 294//010&connnctndAppnals-ofVillagn Bijwasan lA.App. No. li:/.y)icj& connectedAppealsofVillaBePochanpLT ' ' ' •, . l-agt! 4 of 2!) i' % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 I.A.APP, 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEI-IAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33,36to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: {Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain.,Advocates forUOI/LAC • Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SoraerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA . LA. AFP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. FA.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 9] 9/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' 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 121/201] 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. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. .LA.APP. LA.APP, L.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. • LA.APP. LA. AFP. 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 129/2011 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. . 156/2010 15/2010 . 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011. 119/2011 429,/20] 1 522/2011 5357201 1 . ..App. No, U.9b/?.008&connocledAppealsofVillageBharthal . AApp. No. 294/2010&conneclfidAppealsof VillageBIjwasan LA.App No, 311/2010& conneclfidAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pjge 5 of 29' f 2^ # (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012 ]. -Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, tlicicioicwith the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing ot these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotJficationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notificatiori of l.f December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, peitaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates including"villages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand'Pochanpur. j. , Agiiculturalland 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 IBlock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Bfock'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired l-A.App. No. 119S/2008&conncicledAppeals.ofVillageBharthal. I/',.App,iMo. 291/2010&connpcledAppealsofViilagGBijwasan •lA.App, No. ni/7,010&cbnnGctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur . n '1 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 @ ^15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

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

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Anr., - (2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LMs, Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors,, (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira. P'atil

(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 & Ann, • 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State ofUaryana S. . Ors., , 2010(9) SeALH 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCALl^ 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors ra. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SeC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003"titled as Smt Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficerk Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 S(X^ 714; ThakarsibhaiDevji'bhaiami ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, LA.App. No. .ll!>;)/?008a connnctRdAppealsof VillageSharthai :.A.App. No. 7.94/?.010&• connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •A.App. No m/2010 & connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' • " • Page 7of 29 t t Gufarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Hmyana State Indmtruil DevelopmentCorpomtion,(2010) 11 SCC 115; RisalSingh& Ors. Fs. UnionofIndia& Ann, 2006 (89.) DPJ 527 (DB);LaiChmtdvs. Union ofIndia, and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and •Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammaiaM Anr ra. SpecialTehsUdar (LandAcquisition)and Anr.,.AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon 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(201]) DLI 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh w. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & .Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of .India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKuntar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. UnionofIndia, 2010

(170)DLT371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland 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 cannotbe lim.itedto the near llvLurealone.

¶7II was pointed out by Mr.R.S.lomar, counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewan-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line ofVilhige Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe^ailwaylineis the IGI Airport,New Delhi W.App. No. lia,V2003&conneclodAppealsofVillageBhaiihal lAApp, No. 231/2010&connpcleclApp«alsofVillageUijwasan .^'\.App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofViliaBoPochanpur Page 8 of 7.9 i 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.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension ol IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of VillagesBamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslmz.X)to highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land ofVillageBharthal had.ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notificationof24^'' October,1994,

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Roiit,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been V\'iongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. lA.App. No. li9.S/:{008& connpctfidAppealsofVillage Bharthal l.A App,.No.?.91/;?010& corineclcdAppealsofVillaBe Bijwasan LA.App.[Jo. 1.11/20.10&connGclcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pae9 f23 L 1' . f Redd!AOn. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Byderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been considered^by the Apex Court in its later in Vdho Dms vs. StateofHaryana& Ora., 2010(9)SCAD; 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingin view the developmentin the area overaperiodoftime and the same cannot be limited to a near'/uturealone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it would not meanthatthereis no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the , appellantsupon the sevenSale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 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 is no basis to concludethai these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluDessai vs. StateofGoa ""dAnr.,(2010)13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplarsoughtto be . taken as representingthe marlcetprice of the land which comes to ?57 , lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupontheminimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquiredland was sought bv Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basisofthe L& ' OO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of p-e-determined rates fixed by tire Governmentfor allotmentof alternate plots .n tire year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand Roiennahtyof the acquiredland, determinationof its market value is ./.J4/<-.OlO & cnnnnrioW A. 1.1. ' LA.Apo No ?94rQWR, m VillageBharthal IA.App no' 1? f BIjwas.n Pr Nc.llj,.(.10&connmedAppMisofVillagePochanpur ] sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Detcrmined 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 Aw^ard No.26/2002-2003 dated y5. ]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) ' ^ b) Does not accountfor the fcicl that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates,of land in the areafor more than 15'years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land. AcqiLisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territoiy ofDelhi is not in accordance with the l.aM> laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar.2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining the valueofthe land,under.acciuisi.tion. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds prod.ucedbefore the trial Court whereas as per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.547'5 of2(J07. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that.Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin l.A.v\pp.No. 113!)/2Q08&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal W.App, No. 794/2010&connGctndAppealsof Villageliijwa,san U.App. [\|o. Ul/2010&connectedAppeal,?of VillagePochanour I-•1 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 Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1). SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 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 Bharthcd was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The m.asterplan and Notifications of Governmentfor 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 respectof the 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, way ' • deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected'from there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and .Anr vs. Union of India and. refusedto consider thefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser yvoiildpay for: the subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. ,2' had also 'I.A.App,"No. 1195/20Q8 & connccled Appeals of Village liharthal • LA.App. IMf). ZD'l/ZOlOS connGcledAppealsof Village Biiwasan LA,App. No. 111/2010 & connccled AppealsofVillagePochanpur PageIZ of 29 ) auctioned similarly situated, land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdeveloped,land. 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 hot take into accountthe possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bha.rtha.l was changed and. these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityof the said land. ln'Sa.ngunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was held,that the purposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto 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 portionoj the land is beingconsideredas ^ house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingputin betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,tlie factual details have been providedwith a pra^'erthat the appellantsofthis appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunch ofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe • .appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof LA.App. Mo. H95/2008&conncctedAppealsofVillageQharthal I.A.App. Mo. 294/2010&connccledAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&conn-:;ctedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 13 of 29 1/^ and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Iciiowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the gale 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 rates/Pre-DetermmedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SmhUKumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-Ip objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factored'into, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I Apiil, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands, has been erroneously dctermmed by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has'been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor fiirtherenhancementfi-om the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the ,0 ReferenceCourtwhiletalcinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% _ per annum and the same desei-ves lo be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. '

¶17After consideringthe rival submissionsadvanced by both the • sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe true marketvalue ofthe comparablelandis thepricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling

1.A..APP.No 11P5/;M08&connmndAppealsofVillas iAA ^ connGctodAppealsof VillageUljwasan LA.App, No. ,.1.1/2010&connertedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pago 15 of 29 i _ _ . urbanizationof the 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; KapilMehra (Major General) Ors. Vs. Union of India Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol" the acquired lands. Jhus, enhancement of compensation rcflcctingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing'the cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51 -A of Lewd AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence [or 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 purchaserand other factors namely,nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value ofthe acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai La! vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) -DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs.. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(z009) 15 SCC 769; LA. A.PP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a shortperiod cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for buch shaip increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. H95/Z008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A.App. No. ?.94/7.010&connecledAppealsofVillageBiiwasan LA.App. No. 111/?.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pagel4of:'9 I 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 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 impohance or because of its explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquired-landforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(lii) possibility^ofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsorthe likefor using the acquired,landfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of high^mys, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin thevicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which m.ay become availableto the occupiersof buildings,if builton the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor trie acquiredland itself being in deinandfor building purposes, to specify afew. " 1he potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large rjuraberof factors. For the said puiposc, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for I A •App. No. 11.95/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharlhal A.App. Mo, ?.fM/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage BIjwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur •

¶9which the lands were sought 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 iSc Anr vs, MJi. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhich emergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon 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 foture prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land. i -

¶20It is a well established proposition of raw that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. 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 Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto Vvith advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra),while takingnote ofrhe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. Tlie pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court mAnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- l.A.App. No. 1155/2008& connectedAppnalsofVillageBharlhgl lA.App. No. ZIM/SOIO&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwDsan LA.App. Mo. 111/2010&connected,Appealsof VillagePochanpLir ' " p-i,n7 f-9 "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, M'ill be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandM'idth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the' values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are yv.ith 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 resorted, to... " It 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 Chimlha Fakira Patii (Supra), which are as folio ws:- '7/ 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 between a willing vendee and. the willing vendor which, could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acling 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 reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Namra! Gas Corporation Ltd,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor kind in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices'would be sloyv, 'steady and gra.d.zia.l,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. IA.ApR, No. 1195/M08&. connnctedAppealsofVillage Bharlhal ' • i.A.App'.Mo. 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VlllaRe Bijwasan LA.App. No. Ul/20ia& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pagel8of29 i 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 annum. 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-urbanareas is about 10% to l5%o per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5%> 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 reasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwould dependupon the same. Normally, recourseis taken to (ke mode-ofdeterminingthe market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonably safe where the^ relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is iiptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even ifit relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe m.arket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or , LA.App. No. U95/200f?&connnctfidAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.Apo. No. ?..gi/2010&connnctedAppealsof Village Bijwasan LA.App, No. .1.1.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagsPoctianpui

¶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:c., RadhaSwamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at aprice which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre. V

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex:PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-owners,and Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in lespectof the compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of ,, the landmthe villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds lA.App. No. 1195/2008&coniiectndAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 2M/2010&connoctGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' acquisitionin 1970or 1980 mayhave manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic,change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pi ices OT suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase. " . .

¶24'JliisCourtis mind&lofthe dictumoftlie Apex Court in Haryana SlateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under;- "JVhendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt, that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided anda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification." (hx.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the SEile exemplars—Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was dependentuponthe natureand 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.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbetreatedas 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 elicitedfrom 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 SM>aini 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-LA. App. No. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Sitigh vs.. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. ^7. In the instantmatters, though the land use ofthe acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used foi" agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailijig LA,App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppRalsofVillagB Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&conneclfidAppealsof VillagePochanpur i # i-market price of the land in question woiild 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 (Jix.PW-1/4 to lix.PW-l/lO) 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,2000, 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 (lix.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 fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question,

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, noAV it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands 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.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Recldyaitd Ors, V, Land Acquisition Ofjicer Flyderahad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. iloyvever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlandwith hidIdingpotentialityM>ith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a yvelldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood lA.App. Mo. .1153/2008& i;onnectedApp(;alsofVillaBe Bharthal I.A.ApjJ.No. 29'!/.''_010& connccledAppp.alsofVillagu Bijwasan l-A-App.No. 1.,T1/'2010&conncctodApp£!al.sof VillagePochanpiir ' PigG22of29 "T or yvhetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land, with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the-salesofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood,of the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired land with re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section.4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by • asmall percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percenta.ge 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 evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland, indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even if formed in the acquired land. " j 1. In view of the difficultiesin adoptionol' rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chaml (Supia), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands.- Following the dictum of La! Chaml (Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court mJai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No.,1.1%/2008&conncctpdAppealsof VillageBhartlial lA.app.No. 2!M/^oio&connoctedAppealsof Villageriijwasan LA.App. IMo. 11.1/2010&connecledAppealsofVillafiePochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adoptedthe DDA rates for allotment of developedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquiredagriculturallands 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 considerationthe earlier acquisitionof the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior-counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalation at the compounded rate 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 Notification for developmentof DwarkaPhase-II,still the 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 adopt 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 may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe 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. .119^1/2008& connflctedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage BIjwasan I.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur i # # i.A LA. . ' ' escalationovei the marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34;Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per annum,•which is unwarranted as a cooidinatGbench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After haying 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 SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @12/o per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum.In this view of the matter,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 to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Governmem's minimum .rates of agricultural I'lncl pertamuig to the Notification in question ha.s been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to bt. an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban.It is truethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994 the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut that by itselFisnot sufficientto fApp No. 3195/2008&connectGclAppenIsofVillageBliarthiii • ' ' .A.App. No. 2.04/2010&. connoctfidAppealsofVillageBijwasan A.App. No. ]li,v.oio&conncctedAppealsof VillagePochanpur l-uge 25 of 29 I presume thai the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectoftlierebenig any developmentin and afoundtlie acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swaml Satsang,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosetiratthe sale • ofliesaid landswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, 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 increasempricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe . acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannolrely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance • of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-l/Il)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityandpotentialityofthe sale exemplarsoUiadha Swam, Saisang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha'(l=x.PW-l/il) cmtnofbe treated to be sufficient ^ ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the albresaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State I,idmtnalDevelopmm,Corporation

(Hsmc)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded •ior the lands acquiredunder the same Noti.ficationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due'to higher I that there is agap between what • PI ^o.m/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagepochanpur ' Page 26 of 2.9 would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I iind no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Courl. in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question, landing of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation ol the acquired lands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButI find that the aspectof higherpotentialityofthe 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,Part1and Part11, dividingthe ^ acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity ol the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof atoresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume higherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof D'warkaPhasc-I. Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account ofthe higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the I.A,App. No. 1l!)S/2t)08fi connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&corinecledAppealsofVillage Bijv^asan lA.App. No. 1.11/2010&connectedAppeal.-;of VillagePochanpur " rZ9 # settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mimt NaiishemanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buddingsmthe immediateor nearfixture, such conclusion woutd be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildmgpotentialityand proceedto determine its market va lie takinginto account the increasein priceattributable tosuch 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 assessingfair compensation,it is A broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum , prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands drtferentlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto gram 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby theReftrenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotenliahtyin tjieacquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding,0% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto VillageBharthal and Village Biiwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellant,ofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellaittsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwas»,the appealsof I-A. lA.App ,• Ip. p. .1....I/201G&conn.clcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur PaRe 2Sof2g # i"- the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquh-edlands of these, three villagesin questionis determined@?!6,50,000/-per>5?^for the Categoiy A land and @?14,69,600/-per bi.gha for the Category lands in question. \

¶41On 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,excepttor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, for which periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts. ' W 42. 1he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the . compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets " be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb /Oa-t'\ fnl Oyrr"^''-' A.APP. No. ,1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal A.App, No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan IA.App. No. 111/20,10&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpu ^ 't' i~ ' '-wi A.//;, / rv I iiiiiii»r*irir^ pur Pii8o29 of 29 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -1-la.APP. 1195/2008 ranbirsharma Through-Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AiiiitMaan,MrJaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jitm Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. ; Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr S.K.Rbut,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefor Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOF INDIA&ANR^ _ Respondents Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaan Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. W CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNILGAUR , , ORDER

12.0L2012 CM. AdpL No. 752/2012 (For correction). ; This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^''January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe not LA.App.No.1195/2008 d ce Paeb 1 # ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis appjicationhas already givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointedout by the respondenti decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 o aforesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per bi. whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by lea counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicatio allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto "perbigha'inparag, no: 40 of I.A.App.No,1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Neces correctionsbe carriedout forthwith. In view ofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY12, 2012 pkb 'TSUNILGAUk) JUDGE been 1 the the 5ha', rned •n is :aph sarv AApp.No.1195/2008 Page 2

% + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 964/2010 UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: versus Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Banlcey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. KARAN SINGH RANA DECD THR HIS LRS Respondent Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki 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) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR