Narayan Singh v. UOI & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vi'. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06,2012 pkb IL GAUR) JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NE\W DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SliARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maari,Mr.AmitMaan,I\4r.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mi-.N.S..Negiand Mr.H.S.REiutela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mi-.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates / versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. •. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Eoddar,Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay PathalCiMr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin-Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, •, Mi-.BaniceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR %

12.01.2012 • C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). . This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6"^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by tlie respondentin the decision of 6'" January. 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensation.assessedis 'perbigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants:Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it:is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LAApp.No: 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe caitied out forthwith. In vjewpi the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof <___ JANUARY12,2012 JUBGE pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2 % .IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November IS. 20JI Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRJD-A) LA.APPJ 195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBJR SHARJ\4A Appellant rhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitA4aari,Mr.Jai Prakash,Ms.Smila Maan, Mr.R.SA'erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Aiiand Yadav and Ms.Anita Toraar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Adv ocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate N4r.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam A]:isari, Advocates, Mr.P.ankai Vivek, Advocate Mr.RaJesh Yadav. Mr.]3eepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay MehlaAvat,Advocates Mr.Pi.S.P.auteia,Advocate • Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.FLS.Ranlela,(Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus U^ION OF INDIA& ANR.' Respondents 1hi-ough; Mr.SanjayPoddav,Sen/orAd\'ocatewith Mr.Sanja> Pathak,, Mr.Moh.itrao.Jadhav and M.s.Navlin Svv'ain. Ms.K.Xaumudi Kiran. Advocates tor LAC/UOI -Mr.AJayVerma, Ms.Becnasliaw Soni. Mr.Mukosh Kumar,Mr S ,Seihi,Mr.Pav/iinIvlathiir,Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate fo-r D[)A !..A..AFP.4I2/2008& CM,No,4096/200S (Cross-Objections).f.A.APP.452/2008; LA.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& 04.No.5990/201o' (Cross-Objeclions); l.A.APP.697/2008& CM,No,433/2009(Crols-Objections);LA.APP.70i'/20C8& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objfsctions): l..\,APP/768/200R; l.A.APP.770/2008:, l.A.A^'p. f'jo. Il9.'v'2008& connectedAupGjilsofViliagc Bhyrlliyl iA,,'\rjp.Na. /94/?0l0 S. conncri.edAppoalsofVillajjc-Biiwii;,jn IA.App. l,i:i,/V0.10& connociodAppealsofViilaf'c:l-ochanpiir Pai'c! i. oi IS LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/20()9 (Cross-Obiections);, 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); LAAPP.S 18/2008; 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 8c 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.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) l.A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008 LA.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 (CrQss-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-0bjections) 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) L.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081./2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Obiection3) LA.y\PP.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.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No;3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP.ll 10/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 1>2/2008 & " CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objections)iLA.APP.l113/2008 & CM.No.3826.,'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 1i.5/20()8; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008 [.A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections) .f.A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No.556/2009 iXlross-Obiections) LA.APP.l133/2008; LA.APP.l135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objeclions) LA.APP.1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 iCross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008 LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157./2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774.'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.1166/2008 LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008 . LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l171/2008; LA^APP.li72/2008; LA.APP.l173/2008 LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP;1181/2008 LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP. 1186/2008& CM..No.7013,/2009 l.'X.App.No. 5195/?.008& conp.fictedAppealsof VillagG Bharthal lA.App. No. zgi/zoio £t connected AppeaLsof VillageBijv/asan LA.App. No. :i.U/;inlO8t conneclGclAppealsofVillagGPochanour' ' ' Page 2of29 % (Cross^Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/200,8; 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.N6.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2G08& CM.N(i.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP:i243/2008; 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.y\PP.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.7] 03/2009 (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; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-.Objactions); LA.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.224,/2009; (Cross-Objections); •LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APiP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; • ].A.APP.572/200,9; l.A.APP.404/201.0; 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.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; LA.APP.245/2009; 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; LA.APP. 113 8/2008; l.A.APP.ll77/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP.-l 3 9/2009 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 L A.APP.3 05/2009 LA. APP.45 8/2009 L A. 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. 1176/2008 (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 & AAvard No. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002,Village Bharthai;"Delhi) • (GRID-B)' .. • • • , Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on:. January 06. 20]2 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). (;• DIWE^DERKUMAR Appellant , . Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. i\io 1395/;',0C8& connectcd Appeals of VillageBharlhal LA.App. No: 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App No. 1.11/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (inR-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus UOl &• ANR Ly\.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. [.A.APP. LA.APP. . LA.APP. [A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, f.A.APP. l.A.API^ 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 & r Respondents rhrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUpi/LAG 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.Kunai Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP.

1.1/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010-LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288,/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 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 (C LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APR 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. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 722,/2010 LA.APV. 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 & ross-objections) a^elatingto NotificationNo. F.i0(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. 119.'3/.2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhnI L^.App. No. 291//010-& connertcidAppealsofVillage Bijwasan !.A.App.IMo. in/'MlO & connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur . l-age 4 of 29 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 J.A.APP.111/2010(VIIXAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.SoIanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23.to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36to 40, 44 to49, 59, 63 to71) 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.SanJayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kiinal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth.Advocates forDDA. LA. AFP LA.y\PP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. J.A.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP, LA.APP, LA,APP., 411/2010 ; 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 536/201]'. 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. 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 . 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 526/20 n- •59\12Q\\ 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.AFP-. 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./\PP, . 156/2010 . 215/2010 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,/201] 522/2011 53572011 ;kA^pp,No, 1195/2008&conncclodAppealsofVillageBharthal , l-A-'Xpp.No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App No 1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur, /L^ (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

06.01.2012

¶1Since the giounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therciorewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotijicaiionNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/!A/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating - to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and I ochanpurare beingdisposedotby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'l)warkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of if: December, 2000 under Section 4 oi' the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwaj'ds, i.e., Award No.26/2002-20p3; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation ?13.82 lacs per acre for l?locl< 'A' (level field with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B,'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentol marketvalue oftheir acquired l.A.App. No. It95/20U8& contiecledAppeals.ofVillafjeBharthai. LA.App, No. 29<i/2010S connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. .111/2010& cor.nGctGdAppealsofVillaRG Pochanniir " ^ , ; • . 0^ 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 compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive 'Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai ra. State ofGoa and Ann,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Or.s-vs.. State ofHmyana and Anr,,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (D'ead) through LRs, Vs. Speciai Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) S: Ors., (2010) 3 SeC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs ra. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 111-., Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia <&' Anr., 2002.(65) DIU 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas fs. 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.IC) No. 4143/2003' titled as Smt. Indu Khorana Gram Sabhd <& Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC; 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, A.App. No. .ll!?.')/?008'a connccled Appealsof Village.iJharlhal .A.App. rJo. 294/?.010&• connuctfidAppp.alsof Village; Bijwasan A.App. No 13.1/20.10& conncctcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' • Page 7of29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2MA-, •Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) IISCC \15-RisalSingh& Ors, Vs. UnionofIndia& Anr,, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyamma!and Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Aii-ahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC '745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20]1) DLI 361; W.P.(C)No.'4284/2007titled as 'SuratSingh to. 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 SushilKum.ar 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 BhulsRam vs. UnionofIndia, 2010

(170)DLT371.

¶0On 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 fiiit understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limrtedto the near futurealone.

¶7It was pointed out by'Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewan-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan ^ passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts,

1.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi . l-A.App,No. 1195/2003&coiinectndAppealsofVillageBhanhal l-A.App. No. .3<11/2010&connoctodAppealsofVillageBijwasan i.|.App.IMo, m/2010S( connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur •. • .P3EG8of?.9, y and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Mlirti 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 Iiouses 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 of 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 acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired,for the development of Fhase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslmz.^to highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are 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 Notilication of 16 October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultura!' to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24^'' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wiongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. 1A.App. No. 1195/:',008& connnctadAppealsofVillage Bharlhal !.A.App.,No.294/2010& conn(?cledAcpc!alsofVillaBG BijVi'asan . l-A,App.i<lo.111/2010&connectGdAppealsofVillagePochanpur Papogofzg ReddiA Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ora, (1995) ; 2see 305, which has been-consideredby the Apex Court in its later in Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ora., 20)0(9)SCALE 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 future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality. .10. Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto 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 concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because,of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition latd down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluDessai vs. StateofGoa andAm,, (2010) 13 SCC 710,the averageofsaleexemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 ; lacs per acrc and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are tlte comparable'sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the •. ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circleratesfor detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. ,

¶11Assessmentofmarketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson tlieba.sisofthe I,& '. DO rates lixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre- - determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate plots ,n the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand ^ potent,ahtyof tire acquired land, determinationof its market value is f>r sought on thie strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Dctermihed Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

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

23.J0.2002 being flawed 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 accountfor the fact 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 AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. • . c) .Vahdng the land on the basis of the letter dated _ .11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital . • \Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid , down by variousdecisionsAncludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in 'Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(3)see 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe land underacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sdle Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasasper the law established by the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land Acquisition Officer,.Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale . Deedshowinghigher rate shoiildnot be disregardedin lAApp, No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Uharthal lytApp. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage IJijwa.san ;L/^.App.NO. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur Papg ^9 case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molii 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 Suprem.e Court . including in. Subh Ram v.?. State of Haryana 2010(1) •SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •refused 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 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, cornmei-cial 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, bv ^ virtue of M'hich the Mtmicipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land, is situated, M>as ' • deemed a municipal area a.nd the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Pdnchayat 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 considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser yvoiildpay for, the.subject ia.nd.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent 'No. 2 -had also l-A.Ap,p.No.1195/P.008& connocled AppcjaLsof VillaRG Bharthal LA.App. Nt). 291/ZOlO& connncledAppealsofVillageBiiwa.san .LA.App. No. .1.11/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • Page 12 of Z9 ./• . 1 . ! !.A.App LA.App, l.A.App, auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subject land is even loM^er than the •: pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. • k). Does not take into accountthe possibilityofchangeof i the use ofthe land although the land, was acquiredfor : development purposes of Lhvarka Phase II. It is , reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and : Bha.rtha.1 was changed and these' areas ceased to be agiicultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. . I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityof the said land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar [

(2010) 3see 661 it was held,that theptirposefor •which land is acquired is, a relevantfactor.-..While • determining value oj the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in nearfuture 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 acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portionoj the land is beingconsideredas house'site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and otliers of LA. App. No. J47/2009,tlie factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidarguments,advancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof No. .1135/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofViliageBijwasan No. 111/2010St connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatray Thirthkarvs. State • ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapM Mehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union of India A Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Dctcrmined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc 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 of the acquired lands, 'ilius, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay JPoddar,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 ior determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special l^ncy 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 of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai La! vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Salpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(z009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushii Kumar w. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sliarpincrease in piice,in a shortperiod cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.•App No. 119.'3/Z008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I..A,App.No. 2B'\i20\0&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan [.A.App.No. l-a/?.Oj.O&connectedAppealsofVillaBoPochanpur ' , ' Papel4of29 I and the purchaseras no prudentperson having laiowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swaini 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 ,• cooidmateBenchofthis Courtin SushilKumar(supra)andRaj Sdngh . (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof tlie land is concerncd,it was ui-ged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for tlie Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativepriceofthe a,griculturalland by the Governmentas on 1 Apnl, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per ; annum,^ market value of the acquired iands has been erroneously determined by the Reference-Court,as in Sushil Kumar (supra) ; appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scopefor fiutlierenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RclcronceCourtwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe 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,tlie evidenceon. recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilhng ; I'fApp.Nc).1192/2008&connocteciAppealsof VillageBharthil ' ' , |A/\pp.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagel!ijwa.san ^IA..App, No. U.L/^010a connected-Appealsof VillagePochahpur - Page IS of 29 :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 Haryana & 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 • of its explosivepopulation; _

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandfjr puttingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; ^ I (^ii) possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants ofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using theacquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of . : buildingplots or developedresidential 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 acquiredland or the acquiredland itself being in dem.and for building purposes, to ' specify afew. " ,18. ihe potentialityof land for the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for building purposes depends upon a large number of fectors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose .for IA.App. No,1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharlhai ' • '..A.App.No. 7.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwa.'ian LA.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppeal.';of VillagePochanpur which 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.exemplarsof siiiallpieces of land relied upon by;theappellantscould not be a ground to discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special - LandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. MJL RafiqSaheh, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialitv of the villages, which are smiilarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands : 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 agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is i . • { 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).canbe referredto with advantage,

21., Apex Courtin Valiiyammai(Supra),while takingnote ofthe 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 im,proper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in An^aniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under i L•^.App. No. 11S5/200S& conncctedAppealsofVillageBharthgl l.A.App. No. 291/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan . lA.App, No. 111/2010&conneded AppealsofVillagef'ochanpur Pappl7of29 ' "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, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly 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 resorted, 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:- ''It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands ,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 ' acting in the normal m.arket conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23. Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil ami Natural Gas CorporationLtd

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for developmentin 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 -gi^adual,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. / lA.App. No. liy5/;.008 & connectedAppRalsofViilageSharUial . ' i-A.A|3p.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillasc Bijwa.Siin l.A.Aiip.No. in/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochar,pur On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demandfor, 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 somepockets 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 M'here 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 15%per annum, .the corresponding increases in rural areas would ai 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 applying a 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 the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved.market valuepf nearby lands''inprevious years (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contem.poroneoussale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparablelands in theneighbourhood.The said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour to-fiveyears. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even ifit relates to a, neighbourin''^ land.. What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only a i few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determ.i.ningthe m.a.rket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or LA.App. No. I19!;/200f?&connciClRdAppealsofVillage!Bhnrtha! . ' " • !A.ApD.No. 291/2010&connnctBdAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App No. 1U/.7.010&connectedAppealsofVillage PocManp'ir ^ . 3b acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the , - likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase. "

¶24'rhisCourtis mindfolofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtinMaryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSID'C)(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:- When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say foi forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with ) referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided :, and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification." -5. Undisputedly,m these appeals sale exemplars in and around, acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasanof the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by-the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsangBeas had puichased the agricultural land mVillage Pochanpur at a price which varied from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacsjjeracre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (H.x.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l./lO)which • • are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePocha.npurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof the landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required , to be ans^wcred. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds ; I.A.App. No. 1.195/2008&connected.Appealsof VillageBharthal 1-A.App.i\lo. 2S<V20,10&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' , , I.A.App.No. :l:l.l/2Cao&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' ' ^ (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ^52 lacs 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 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 exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pocharipurvide 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 purciiaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchased-morethan 33 Bighas ofland at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 23.8.2011•and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh j-'s. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamuipui was discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands-. 27, In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuch priorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acqun-edlands were being used foi-agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1.195/2008&connectRdAppealsof VillagG Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&conncctodAppealsof VillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectodAppealsofVillagePochanpur 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 (]ix.PW-l/4 to Iix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the i • 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 i , • ' ;'v , (i^)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 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 exemplarsdisclosingrealistic price of similarly -. situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to ' whethe]- adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-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 acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its 'decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddy and Ors, R Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., ]995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- ^

¶2IJowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the , determinationofthe marketvalue of the acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialityM>ith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood , l-A.App.No. .1.135/2008& connectedAppnalsofVillage Bhsrthal I.A..App. iMc. 294/.'!0.10& connccteciAppealsofVillage Bijwasan ' . lA.App. No. 1..U/7.0.10ft connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur Rape 22 of 29 • Oi orwhetherithe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland, with buildingpotentialitywith reference to I thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in 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 sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice . which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotification under Section • 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhood,of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be d.one is to find out the marketvalue of ; the acquired,land with reference to the relevant date of. publicationunderSection 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 he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for ' , such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales oj buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicatingtho.t there was no immediate demand, a.s such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the , acquired land." . ' j1. In view of tile difficultiesin cidoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA:afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supia),held thai it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) , and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of : IA.App. No,]l'«/2008&conncctodAppealsof VillageBharthal l-A.App.No. ?<M/2010&connectndAppealsof VillageBIjwasan l.A.App.No. 1U/20.1.0.&connectedAppealsof VillaBGPochanpur ^ Pa^e23of23 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 acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the land in questionwhiletakinginto consideration'theearlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka 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 I Notificationfor developmentofDAvarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris morethan the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aloresaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt pi-ogressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it' relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-I and Dwarka Phasc-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe ' mode of determining the market, value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. n9S/2008& connflctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal , .• L^.App. No. 294/2010&connccledAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur p 24 fZ9 escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay-Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/erpss-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwaiTanted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Smhil Kumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has beeri grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @ 12% 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. \ minimumprice ofthe 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 offixationot the minimumprice for the agriculturallandby the Governmentw.e.f. 1''April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals' deserves to be flirther increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural la,nd 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 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be' urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNolificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto ' I ' • lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthiii ' ' iA.App. No, ^JM/2010&:connectfidAppealsofVillage BIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • I . presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital , aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars ofRadha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ; ofthe saidlandswas 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 increase.inprice due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired, lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then ; appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land • in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to : establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of , •ViHagc Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'-be treated to be sufficient giound to giant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of-the Apex Court in Haryana State IndmtrialDevelopmentCorpomtkm (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the , • minimumprice fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in •Delhi, which generally,factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality, lakmg note of the fact that there is agap between what i-A.App.No, 119^2008&connoctodAppealsofVillageBharthal A.yp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan f-A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur " •. 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 find 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 Court in the matters pertaining to Village BharthaLand Village Bijwasan has rightly'relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question, landing of the ReferenceCourtin matterof VillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidencethat the potential and'the situation oi 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 PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passing through Village I Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side toDwarkaSub-City,PartI and Part11, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinitv of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt.'In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof aloresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume;higher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof Dv/arkaPhase-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 buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the CJ* ^•A.App. No. 1.19;)/2008& connected Appealsof VillageBharthal L>v.App. No. 294/2010&' connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No; 1.11/2010&, connectedAppealsofVillaBePochanpu," • settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a id. ing potentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe-increaseinpriceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringtlie fart 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 broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there ai'e no specialfeaturesto ti'eatthe acquired lands.diiTerentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bhartlial and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in SusUl Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto gram 10% increaseoverand above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourt in aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question. ••

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extern of , awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto VillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpuratpar with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof lA.AppN".u<V2008&connoa^^^ , ' ' • , ' •AApp.^o.?J4,.'010a connocledAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App..No..1.1,1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • % the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the, extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthese threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^^^^forthe Gatogoiy 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per for the CatelTrJ^"'B' 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,;exceptfor the periodwherethere'isa,delayin filingthe appeal, ioi w^iicihperiodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall oc paid,;!hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof m th.e aioresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General..ofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb 'J " 1, tT' I'--- ^ I ' rol / r lA.App. No, 1195/2008&conneclodAppealsofVillageBharthal ; IA,App. No, 2M/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBIjwasan lA,App. No. 111/20,10&coiinecledAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Pago 29 of 29

% % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1051/2008 NARAYAN SINGH Through: Reservedon: November0 , 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus 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.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR