Rama Mehra & Anr v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.201.2 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. S IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. (1 Resei'vedon: November i& 20.11 January

(GI.)-A) LA.AiP.i 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RAN.BJR SHAftMA Appellant I. hrough: Mr.13.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, .Ms.Snita Maan, Mr.R.SXerrna, .Mr.Jitin Tewathja, Advocates V Mr.Anand Yaday and Ms:Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohas, Advocate. Mr.Rag11l.vinder..Godara, Advocate 1V1r.N:\Iegi and MrH.S.Rautela, Advocate N4r.S.k.R0ui and Mr.B.K,Routray Mr.M.AzamAnsar. Advocates. V Mi'Pankai Vwek, Ad'ocate Mr.Rajcsh Yadav., Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit ]Khos!a and Mr.DhananaVy Mchlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.iautek, Advbc.ate Mi.1.S.Dahiya. Adm;ate lVIr.Sandcep Thakiiur, Advocate vIr.At1 AdvoCate:. Mr..S..Negi and Mri1.S.Ra.uiela. (Advocates fi respondent in appeals filed [ liThJ) versus .10 LNIVON OF !NJ)IA & ANR.. kc.pondci-s Vj hruuv.h: Mr.Sanjaiv Poddar. Vfl!Of ch'ocate WU V So a) Pathal. Mr.Mo.iitrai-adhay and ]VJ;VN: n wai 11, Ms K Kan nvdi Is ia &d\o

Mr.Ajav Verija, ,4s.Bec1Jashà,v Son]. MrVM1ikc;h Kuma.r, Mr S. K .Sethi, VMr.Pawan Mathur. Mr. K anal S.harma, Advoc.ie fi DD/ V .A.A UUV4 ]. :.. 2008 &. CM.JN.o 4U 0U vIoss-ObJectIoIls) A.APP. b2,' UO LA.VA ,PP.4( ;8LA.AjP.688/2, . :'] .No.5990/2Q I U (ros (b1ccion); ..AVAPJ.G9 71'2co8 &, CMVNoV43/?1) CJS .V.Ohjcctjo?]) . I /\.A r PV7U 1 . N ) .51 011)U9 (Cms-C)c)1• . APP .V7(pV,(V I V PP V 771)12008 p No. 1/03. & cOIV.necl ed Appeals cl vr Bhd '[he °..'\op, No. ,2 94/)O:W & corineed Appcoils Of VPIade l3iwi:,rj '\.App, Nv. ./)010 & onc:ccod Appocvs o \/jo Iocheejoe V c V V V S . .': I.A.APP.771 /2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1A.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.61 I /2009 (Cioss-Objections): LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections).; ., LAAPP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.6 I 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.799/2008 & CM.No.93 1/2009 . , (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008 LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.81 3/2008 & : CM.No. 1 795/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP:8 I 4/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.8 I 8/2008; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2 008; LA.A1 11)829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008;

1.A.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/201 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); • L.A.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.90112008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.95 1/2008 & 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; L.A.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA APP 1 029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1031/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1.046/2008;

1..A.APP. 1 047/2008;LA.APP. I 048/2008& cM.N0.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objectibns); IA.APP. 1049/2008 & CIVLNo, 420;2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 050i2008; LA.APP. 1 051/2008 & CMNo. 1 7262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1 052/2008; LA.APP. 1 053/2008 & CM.No.4 16/2009 (Cross-Ohjections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & Ci. No.752/2011 (Cross-Objectiois); LA.APP. 1 058/2008& CM,No. 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CIVJ.No. 1 7259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CJ\4.N0.623/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); 75/2008; • LA.APP. - CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections): p)• 4/2008& C .17302/2008 Cr ections LA.APP. 1086:2008 M.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 087/2008& CM.No.6 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.APP. 1 094/2008; L.A.APP. 1095/2.008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441 i'2009 (€O5sOhjec.tjofls):jA.APP. 1108/2008 & CM .No;3839/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1109/2008: LA.APP. 111 0/200 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. L.A.APP.1 111./2008; LA.APP.1 112/2008 & . CM.No.383 1/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA APP. 1113/2008 & CM.No.38261/201119 • ((.'rossObjections); LA.APP.. 1115/2008; LAj•\.PP. 1116/2008: LA.APP. 112.1/2008; LA.APP.]1 26/2008; •LA.APP. 1129/2008 & C0.1NIo.550/2009 (Cross-Objcc.ións); .LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.1 131/201)8 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Obiections; A AP' 11 3/2008 LA APP 1 13/2008 & CM No 7442/2009 (lioss 0 1 c1ions) • LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); L.A..APP. 1140/2008; • LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.1157/2008; LA.APP.I 158/2008 & CM.No.7774.'2009 • . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 159/2008; LA.APP.1 16112008.; LA.App.1166,'2008; • LA. APP. 1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1168/2008; • 1..A.APP. 11701/2008; LA.APP. 1171/2008; LA.APP. 1172/2008; LA.APP. 117.3/2008; • LA.APP. I 175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; L.A. APP. 1179/2008; L.A.APP. 1181/2008; I..A..APP. 1182/2008; LA.APP. 11 83/2008& CM.No.6933'2009 (Cross-Objections) iA.APP. 1184/2008; LA/PP. 11 85/200 LA. APP. 1.1 86/2008& CM.No.70 13/2009 /// I .(\.App. No. 195/2008 i :oiinectecj Appeals of Village Iiharthi5 LA App. No. 29'I/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No .:i.1.]./2010 Li connected Appeals of Village Pochanour

Page 2 01 29 (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; [A.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008; LA.APP, 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1.194/2008; LA.,APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/:2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 121 1/2008; LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP.1 213/2008; LA,.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP:1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Qbjectjons): LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1 241/2008& CM.No.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008; [A.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; J.A. APP. 1280/2008; J.A.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP.] 283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008; LA.i-\PP.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; .LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/:2009; 1,A.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; 1-,•A.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.7410009; 1,A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP.1 09/2009: LA.APP. 12 1/2009; LA.APP. I 35/:2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. I 39/2009;

1.A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; LA. APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009: LA.APR 190/2009; LA.APP. 191/:2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 199i'2009; LA.APP.201/:2009; LA.APP.202/2009: LA.APP.. 203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM,No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.21 0/2009 & CM.NQ,970/201 1 (Cross-Object:ions); 1,A..APP.21 1/2009; 1,A.APP.220/2009;

1.A;APP.222/2009; 1,A.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.'224/2009; LA.APP..227/2009; LA.A.PP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24 1/2009; LA.APP245/2009; LA.APP.246/:2009; LA.APP.249/2009; LA.AP.P.257/2009; I..A.APP.295/2009; I..A..APP.305/2009; i.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; . LA.APP.447/2009 1Y..A.APP,458/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; IA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.48 1/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; . 1,A.APP.490/2009; t.A.APP.491/2009; . LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APF. 494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP,506/2009; 1 R APP 507'2009 LA APP 508/2009 L' PP 509/2009 1 L\ APP 51 0'2009 L.A.APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP.5 12/2009: LA.APP.5 13/2009:, LA.APP.567/2009: L.A.APP.572/2009; LA.APP. 1 5/2010; LA.APP,451/201 0; LA.APP.48/20.1 0; .AAPP.4041/201 0; LA.APP.1 3/2011 LA.APP. 1138/2008: LA.APP.1 176/2008; LA..A11P.1 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/200$: 11-A.APP.23 1 /2009 S . (Relating to Notification No. F. I 0(30)/96/L& B/LA/i 3417 dated 13. 12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Laj.id Acquisition Act, 1 894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Viflage Bhartha!, Delhi)

(GRI)-B) I?ese,'ved on: IJecember 08, 2011 LQ!1iiiccLQ!1anuaJ12 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BLJWASAN). I )J/VEND1..R KUIVIAR .. . .. Appellant Through: Mr.R,S,['omar, 1vIr.Virendra Singh LA.App.

No 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhartlial I\App No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3iiwasari A.App No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu . S Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray. Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 4 1-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus TJOI & ANR . . .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanj ay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for LJOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solarikj and MrS.K.Rout and Mr.}3..K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI '5 Mr. [3anky Bihar Sharrna. Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010. LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP.9/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP, 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 J.A.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 'LA.APP. 277/20 10 LA.APP. 281 /2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP, 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA..APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345 12010 LA.APP. 346i'2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 L.APP. 348/2010 LA.AP!. 349/2010 LA.APP. 35012010 L.A.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 'LA.APP. 353/2010 I A.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2.010 L'A.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.i-\PP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 . LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 3591201 0 I APP 360'2010 IA APP 361P010 I APP 362/2010 LA APP 36'20l0 [AAPP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/201.0 . L..A.APP. 4071/2.010 LA.APP. 4081/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.A1P. 438/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 JJ\.APP'. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LAAVP. 72.5/2010'LA.APP. 726,20i0 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.A1P. 729/20 10 LA.A.PP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732'201 0 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APF. 764/2010 .LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 2 86/2010 .LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F, 10(30)96-L& B/LA/1341:7 dated 13. 12.2d00 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, 1)elhi) AND .A.App. No 1,195/2008 & cormecteci Appeals of Village Bharthal . . LA.Ap. No. 2912010 & connected 4ppeu!s of Vifage Bijwasan .A.App. Ne. 1.1 /20.iO & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . . S (GRID-C) P ~ Lciivedon:December]joJj LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SE1-IAJ RAM AND ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.B .1). Sharma, Mr. S .K. Solanki and Mr.SJK.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in RI6, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40,44 • to49,5963to71) Mr.SB. Kumar,. Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/201 1) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R -22) versus UNiON OF JNI)IA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Pocidar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohjtrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navljn Swain. Advocates for UOI/LAC lvlrBa.nkev Biharj Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharnia and Mr.Somer 1K. Seth, Advocates for DDA: C LA.APP, 111/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 254/2010 LAAPP. 292/2010 LA.APP. 307/2010 LA.APP; 395/2010 LA.APP.. 420/2010 LA APP. 466/2010 .LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APT. 660/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010 LA.APP., 919/2010 LA. APP. 65/201 1 LA. API'. 120/2011 LA.APP. 476/2011 LA APP. 523/2011 LA.APP. 536/2011 LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 317/2010 LA.APP. 396/2010 LA.APP. 432i2010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 639/2010 LA.AP1. 662/2010 LA.APP. 7.68/2010 LA.M'l'. 1 052'20 10 LA.APP. 116/2011 LA.A.PP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 485/2011 LA.APP. 525/ 2 011 LA.APP. 554/2011 • LAAPP. 155/2010 LA.APF. 209/20110 LA.APP:,249/2010 LA.APP. 261/2010 L.A.APP. 305/2010 LA.APP 392/2010 L.A.APP. 3970010 J...A.APP. 43312010 LA. APP. 5771/201.0 -A.APP. '640/2010 LA.APP. 741/2010 LA.APP. 784/2010 LAAPP.61/0l1 LA.APP. 117/2011 LA.APP. 129/201 LA'.APP. 521/20]] 'LA.APP. 526/2011 LA.APP. 591/2011 LA.APP. 156/201 0 LA.APP. 2151/2010 LA.APP. 250/2010 LA.AP1. 270/201 0 LA.API. 306/2010 LA.APP. 393i201( LA APP. 412/2010 LA.A1P. 434/2010 LA.APP. 635/201 0 LA.APP. 65712010 LA.APP. 758/2010 !A.APP. 918/2010 LA.APP. 64/2011 I..A.APP. I IQ/201 I LA.A1P. 429/2011 LA.APP, 522/2011 LA.APP. 535,'201 I LAApp. No. 11.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LJpp. No, 294/2010 L connected Appeals of VHiage t3ijwasan LA.App No 11112010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpLlr . 0 0 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& 13/1,A/13417 dated .13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 &. Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.122002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: 11ION'J3LE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01 20 12 I. . Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appQ]Iants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned CoUnsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Notification No.F. 10(3096-L& 131LA11341 7 dated .13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages. Bhartha1 Biwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. Acquisition process for planned development of Dwarka Phase-I! in 1)elhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of J3 1"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaning to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., l3harthal, 13ijwa.san and Pochanpur. Agricultural land of the . appellants herein in the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting .ompensation 13.82 lacs per acre ftn Block 'A' (level field with top soil) and @ Z12.32 hics per acre for Block 13' (without top soil). . . . . Dissatis.Iied with the assessment of market value of their cq'ired fl J\,1\pp. No. 1195/20()8 & connected Appeels.of Villege BharthI IA,App. No. 29d/2010 & connected APPeals of Viflge 8jwasan App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeek of ViIIa#e Pocher,pur Pege 6of 29 agricultural Lands, appellants had sought reference under Section, 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation @ Z15.00 lacs per acre for the apcliants' acquired land in Block 'A' and 13.36 lacs per acre for their Block '13' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasah; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the ai3pellaiits 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 lac;s per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in lExecutive Engineer, .Karnata/th housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and (ks,, (2011) 2 SCC 246; AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa trndAnr,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh Rum and Ors 'f's. State of Harpana and Anr,,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sungunthaia (Dei through LRs. Vs. Specüil Tehsildur (Land Acquisition) & &s, (201 0) 3 SCC 661; Ran vir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Paid

(1)) through LRs vs. The Special LanI Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011 SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) ihiough LRs vs. Union of india & S 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udiw Dass 'C's. State of Ilarpana & 201 0(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & (ks. 9 2011 (9) SCALIi 362; Avinash Dhavdji IVallc vs. Slate of Mf:thurathtra, (2009) 11, SCC 17 1; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of I1làryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; No, 4143/2003 titled as Smt, ijidu K/i oran a vs. Gram Sub/i ti & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr 'vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 71 4; Thakarsihhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive EngineelT, L4.App. No, :11f!2008 & connected Appeals of Village Sharthal .A.App. No. 294/20.10 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No 1.3 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochar'pir . ' I Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; llaryana State Industrial Development Gorporation, (2010) ii SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 2006. (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Ghànd vs. Union of India and Anr,, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and A'àtural Gas Gorporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammai and Anr vs. Special Tehsildr (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Ailahahad Development Authority, (2004) 10 sec 745 Mahesh Dattatrap Thirthkar vs. State of .Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kupil Mehra (Major Generaj) & Ors, Vc, Union of india & Anr, 176(20] 1) I)LT 361; W.P.(C) No. 428/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ani, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash dead by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) Ii SCC 42.3; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Uniqm of india, decided on 07.06.2011; and. Bhuie Ram vs. Union ofin(jia, 201()

(170) DLT 371. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan. learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the accluired agricultural land has to be first., understood in order to appreciate its potential which must he adjudged keeping in viw the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near thture alone. It was pointed out by Mr.R.S..Tojar, counsel for appellants that I)eihi-RcwarjJodlii-broad gage rai vay line of Viii age Ri ij wasan passes through the land of Village B.harthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e.., on the eastern side of the railway line is the 101 Airport, New I)cJhi L!\.\pp. No. 1195/2003 & connected Appeals of Village Rharthail /\ fpp. No. 291/20.10 & connected Appeals of Village l3ljwsn .A.App. No. 11112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochnpur S and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 1.00 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-IT again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side,. where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages I3harthal, Bijwasan and Sam alkha. it was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired ftr the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village BhaiThal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of I)warka Phase-I and the 1atds on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and I)hool Siras were also acquired for the development . of Pha.se41, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizras/rnap to highlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village I)hool Siras are contiguoUs. It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has . illegally treated the acquired land to he agricultural in spite of Notification of 1 6th October, 2000 vid.e which land use of the three villages in question was changed fJm agricultura to residcntiai/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to he rural in view of the Nc:tification of' 2401 October, 1994. It was a.rgued with much vehirn.ence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aftresaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama // Ii.App. No. I.195/2008 & connected AppoIs of ViHage Oharthal App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appea's of Village Bijwasan

4.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpiir S Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabail & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the'Apex Coup in its later decision in Udlio Dass vs. 'State of Hwyana & Ors., 2010(9)SCALj: 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land rnut he adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that tJ.cre is no building potentiality,

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharrna, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs' and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown, out as has been illegally done by the Reference Coui, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are Overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in An,ani Mo/u 'Dessai v. State qf Goa undAni, (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exeinplars ought to he taken as representing the market price of the land which Conies to Z57 lacs per acre and since the sle exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the Comparable sa1 instances, therefore, rd lance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum ratbs/circle rates Ihr determining the market value of the acquired land is Patently erroneous. ii. Assessment of market value of the .aquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& 1)0 rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the Goverflmdril' for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the locatio, situation and Potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market 'value is AApp No, 1,195/7008 & connected Appcas of VHIp,e Bharthaj LA,Aop, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeal5, of Vifloge Bijwesan .AAp No. 1:1J,lojo & connected Appeels of VIPPa80 Pbchanpur PCfQ 10ol 29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the J.& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-

i)etcrmind Rates (PDRs) as referredto above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- a) Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No. 19012 of 2006 (Re/tred to in cross-examination of appellant dated

¶77.200) b)Does not accounttor the fici that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely ccted the rates, of land in the area for more than 15 years bfoe the Notca1ion under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was tssued. c Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued &y the Government of NatonaI Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one of the more recent deCisions of the i/on 'hie Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar. 2010(3)8CC 661. / ci ignores the evidence and othe factors which as per established law has to be Cons idered bejàre aSCertaining the value of the land under acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity 1n. volue of the Sale Deeds produced before the ti-ia! Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'hie Supreme Court in the recent case of C'hinda Fakira I'ati! versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apea/.,]Va.5475 of 2007. The . . 11on 'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that. Sale Deed showing higher rate should not hC disregarded in IA.Aop, No .1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village [3hathl LtiApp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA\pp. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanour Page 11. of 29 case the average sale price is lower. .Ethiher in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. 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 qf sales• transactions should hç cànsidered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the ,nalcei 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 ZI3, 36,000 in Block B in violatiOn of the law laid doivn by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Rain vs. State of Hqrvana 2010(1) SC(1 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.] framed on 27.2.2007 g,) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide iVotification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharihai was changed and these areas ceassd to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterpian and IVotti'catz.ons of (]overnn'ient for land use change show that in future land can be subjected to resjdentiai co/nmercal and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in respect of the 74117 amendment of the Constitution of India. wef 1.6.1993 IX A, In' virtue of which the Municipal (.7orporation Act was a .. amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municipal arCa and the ii'iuricipal Counsellor - was elected from there, No Panchayat elections were held in the cirea. h) Refused to apply the lou.' laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Si"igh and .4 n/t vs. Union (?f india and refused to consider the fcict thai the development in the area has a direct . ffCci oh the price thot a willing purchaser wouldpay /&r the sub/€/ci ,ian 1) ignored the fuel that Rev pondent No. 2 had also I.A.App. No.

3.195/2.008 & connected Appeak of Village [tharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan Upp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . Page 120129 / S • auctioned similarly situated lcind as commercial blocks at the rate of about Z2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdèvelopèd land. j The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for slmliarly situated land.' k) i)oes not take into account ihè possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for • development purposes of Dii'arka Phase II. it is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Sfras and Rharthal was changed and these areas ceased to he agricultural and came now under the urban bOundaries of Delhi State. I) inoied Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 a/though they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. in Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 .SCC 661 it was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is 'a relevant factor.While determining value 'of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to he used • '

for building purposes in immediate or ih near future needs to be considered. in) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose 'of pulling up residential quarters. As a portion oft/ic land is bein considered as r house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near flit nrc. In the brief synopsis by Vcd..Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the 'factual details have been provided With a prayer that the appellants of this appeal he treated at par'yith the, co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anarid Yadav, Advocate that the effect' of LA.App. No. 119512008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasn .A.2pp. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

. • Page 130129 H urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in K land use has been considered in Mahesh Datatray Thirthkar i's. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major Ge;wrai) & Ors. Vc. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-1)ctermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lahds and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market aluc of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate narket value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section ,5 1--A of Lan(l Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale I)eed is an admissible evidence but the same caiìnot be taken as relevant evidence for determination of the market value unless and until the same is - properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to he considered -. and the sale instances reiid upon by the Respondents disclosing correct 1 market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in i/id La] vs. Union o/Indk, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ois vs. Unim qf India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; La! L'hahd vs. Union of.!ndia and .4nr.,

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kunwr, vs. Union ofindia, decided on 26.09.201. 1 , it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot he taken to-be realistic until reasons ir such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidei-ce the seller LA.APp No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village 13harthal

LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwas-an .App NC)..... /?0i.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur -. and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended On behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L&. 1)0 rates/Pre-

i)ctcrmjned Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! Ghand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Suhi1 Kuinar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross objectors that the same has already been 'factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1st April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kunwr (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as xed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modihed deleting the enhancement by the Reference Court while taking into eo.nsidertjon the appreciation, 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation 1 0% per annum and thereby allowing the cross. objections to the aforesaid eXtent

1.7. Afte considering the rival submissions, advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal oithe impugned judgment, the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price laid by willing purchaser to a willing I.A.App. No. I 19b/20u8 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthl .: / \pp. No. 294/2010 connected Appeals of Village Bijwasn i.AApp, No. 1.1.1/20.10 '& connected Appeals of Village Pochnpur Page 15 ol 29 S I I r] seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what, has to be considered in assessing the market value thereoi stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udlio Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- '(iv the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which: had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educationaL religious or any other kind of impOrtance or because of/is explosive population;

(ii) the suitability of the acqiired land/or putting up the buildings, be they i'esideniial, co,nmercil or industrial, as the case may be, f/il) possibility 0/obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land, absence of statutory impediments or the like Jbr using the acquired land for buil(ding purpose; existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired lan.a 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 o/buildngs, i/built on the acquired land; and lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand far building purposes. to spec 1)5.) a few.

¶18The potentiality of land for the pIrpOSC of develojrnent as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors Ior the said purpose, the Court may not only have to, bear in mind the, purpose for A.App. No. .1195/2008 & connected Appeds of VWage ltharthal J\.App. No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasad \.App. No. 11112010& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur which the lands were sought to he acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so àbservd by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Alma 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 Jandwere not available. Afoi-esaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MK Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC • 71 4.. The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference S either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification' for reducing the m copensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land. It is a well established proposition of 1av that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural Iand for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of 3roving inadequacy, of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran. Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with advantage. 2 1. Apex Court in Valiiyammal (Supra). while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in . close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of .40% towards developmeit chargs was impioper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Aijwi Mo/u Dessai '(Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- .A.App.No. 11.05/2008 & coririeced Appeals of Village 13har1h A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected.Appeais of Village llijwCsan LA.App. No, 111/201,0 & conneclecl Appeals of Village Pochanpur "The legal position is that even where there are several

exemplars with reference to sinilar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a 'bona fIde transaction, will he considered. Where however there are several sales of sim i/ar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the avethge thereof can be taken, as representing the • market price. I3ut where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly diffrrenl it can on!); lead to an inference that they are with refrrence 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. Chindho Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- 'Ii is well settled that genufne and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absei'7ce the honaflde stile transactions proximale to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utthty taken place between a 'viliing vendee and the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between veasonahie prudent persons acting in the normal market condttons are the real basis to determine the market value. .,

¶23Principles to determine the inarket value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation L&L

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primaril)), the increase in land prices depends on Jour ft.clors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, avajlabthti.' of 'land far development in the area, and the demand for icm'cl in the area. In rural • areas unless there is any prospect' of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without an)) sudden spurts or jumps. •f.A.App. No. 11.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhattlial ' .A.App. No. 2.94/2010 & connected .4ppeads of.Village Bijwasari t,AApp. No, 1.11/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pocharpur ' I. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, wher the demand fr land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalaikn 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 fbr 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 marginaly at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% • per annum. There is thus a significant diflrence in increases in, market value of lands in urban/semi-urban • areas and increases in marker value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb reftrs to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the abience I clear and speclfIc evidence relating to increase in prlces. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any spec?fIc evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be apjlied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing approarate escalation over the proved.market value of nearby lancL in pr,evmous years as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisiiiorf where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale iranscictions or acq ulsitlons of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably sa/e. where the re//eJ-On-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subieci acquisition by only a.few yems, that is tiplotur to five years. Beyond that it may be unsa,ft, even f/it. relates • to a. neighbouring land. What iiay be a reiicthie s taridard tf the gcp is onlj.' a few years, may become imnsa/C and iinreiiahle standard where the gap is larger. For example. for determining the market value of' a land acquii'c1; in 1992, adopting the annual increise method w it I, vetrence to ci sale or L"..App. No. I 195;2UOg & connected Appeals of ViHage Bharthai J\Apo. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bilwasan LA.Apj No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PocOanpur P3ge 19 of 29 a acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pi/alis. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself 'zidergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occur,ence of varying periods 0/stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard 0/increase.

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haiyana State Industrial Development corporation (HSIDC) (S upra), regarding computatlon of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods What was said by the Apex Court in HSJI)C (Supra) is as under:- When different categories of lands (or lands with derent siluational advantages) are acquired/or the same purpose, soi.' /àr /rniing of a residential layout, courts have someitmes felt that determination (?f' their value with re/C rence to previous status or sithation should be avoided and a unzform rate of compensation should he awarded for all lands acquired under the same notifIcation." • 25. UndispuLedly, in these appeals sale exen-iplars in and aroLmd acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in • question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relid upon, by the appellants is of Villa2.e Pochanptir, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious institution, i.e.. Rod/ia Swami Satsang, Beas • . had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from T52 lacs to 62. lacs Per acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale J)e.eds (Ex.PW 1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) which are basically between one set of co-own.eis and Radha Swami Salsang Beas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pocharipur reflect the correct market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemi3iars, i.e.. Sale Deeds LA..App. No, 1195/2008 8 conricted Appeals of Village 13harthal LA..App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A App. No . 111/7020 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur r~ (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from Z52 iacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale I)eeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with aCquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pocianpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW1/4 tO Ex.PW-1/10) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not beet got examined by the appellants. Had the purciiaser/vendee of the afor,esaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been cliciited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for tlicso lands. The special •fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchased more th:n 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Marnurpur vide Sale I)eed executed on 25111 March, 2000 was also subject matter in tA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Sing/i vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Sing/i vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale eernplar of Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treatCd as representative price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquIsition but it has c6rne in evidence that the acquired lands were being usd for agricultural puipose till their S acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knovledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1.195/2008 & conceded f;ppeak oIVUIage Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . Page 21 0129 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 (Ex.1"W-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So •far as the sale exemplar of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-l/l 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of 27111 January, 2000, it needs to he noted that because this sal.e exemplar (Ex.PW-1/1 1) was situated on the National Highway -8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-l/l 1) 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 he treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question. • 29. Lefi with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to • whether adoption of L& 1)0 circular rates for the developed lands and Pre1)etermined Rates for the alternate plots by the DD.A ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in (lUeStion. • 30. Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and (irs. p. Land Acquisition Ojjicer flyderabad Urban Development Aut/writy Hyderabad and (irs., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-

¶12I:Jowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the narket value oft/i.e acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of j7lots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood 1AApp. No.1191/2008 & ronnected.Appeals of Village Bharihal .A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A./41p. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village rochanptir F'age 22 of 7.9 [1 I, or whether it he the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable fbr the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to he fetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parlis, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched if sold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in 1a3)outs of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with refèrenee to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its vahe by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 1151h of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiaiit3' arises only when there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate dem.ancf as such, fbr building plOts even if fbrmed in the acquired land.

¶31In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate Of land charged by the i)I)A after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Ghand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment ratcs/Prc-I)etermjned Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped f'eehold lands. Following the dictum of La! - (7uind (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jut Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kurnar (Supra). has excluded the II)i)A rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant 1r assessing the market value of pp. No.1 195/2008 & connected Appeals of ViIftge L'hartle,l LA.App. No. 29412010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA,I\pp. No ...... 1/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the I)DA rates for allotment of developd land or the DDA.'s Pre-I)eterrnined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the • land in question while taking into consideration the earlier aquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of • .. : I)warka Phase-I. It was sought to he argued by Mr.Snjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cros_objector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 1.0% pr annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period 'intervening the Notification, for development of Dvarka Phase-I and the instant • Notification for development of Dwarka PhaseLII, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price 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 Lal Chanc( (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 he unsafe, even if it relates to a rieihbouring land. What may be a reliable standard,if the gap; is olonly of a few years, may bcome unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of i)arka Phase-I and Dw.arka Phase-lI is of sixteen years and therefore, it would he unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by 'providing appropriate LA.App. No. I 9/2OO8 & connected Appeals of Village'Bhathal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connccted Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Poclianpur . escalation over the market value of the. nearby land of the previous years. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ i2% per annlim, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil .Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation I O% per annum. After having perused the deCision in Sushi! Kunuir (Supra), 1 find that 1 O% increase on account of higher potcntality of the acquired land dyer and above the market value determined by the Reference Court ha been granted and so, by relying upon Stislill Kunicir (Supra) escalation granted by the Referbnce Court I 2% per annum cannot be reduced to lO% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed. Now what is to be seen is ihet1ier adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in 1)elhi, by the Reference Court is re n asoable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 120,/o per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. iSt.April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or flot. Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land • - pertaining to the Notification in question. has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agricuitLira] land by virtue of Notification of 2411 October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Notifieati.on of the year 1994 the land USC of the acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to 1A.Arp NC).

11.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthai .A.App. No. 204/2010 & connected Aopels oi Village BijWasn LA.Ap..No 11.1/20.10 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 25 DI 29 4P presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any developrneiit in and around the acqiired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swcnii Salsang, fleas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section: 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put.t agicuitural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand. on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in question. l3ut, indeed appellants c.annot•reiy upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpur to a religious idstituiion and another sale instance of Village Samalkha (l:x.PW-1/1 1) without leading any evidence to cstabiis1 that the quality and potentiality Of the sale exemplars of]?cidha Swami Saisang, fleas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-J/1 1) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired Jand with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (lix. PW-l/IJ) cannot be treated to be sufficint ground to grant higher cornpeflsatjoii while relying upon the afiresaicl sale instances. Therefore, in view of the fbrc-referrci1 dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State .industjc/i Deve1opnie,t (]orporatjon (JISIOC) (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to he awardc(j for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of tlic minimum price fixed by the Goverpmeflt for the agricultural land in Delhi which generally facto -s in the rise of price due to higher. potentiality. Taking note of the fact th thre is a gap between what A.App. No. 3195/2008 & connect(d Appears of ViIkip,e Bhrthg LA.App, No. 29412030 & C0000ct(?d Appeft of Viflage Bijwas)n IA App No ....11/2020 & c000ectrd Aopeajs ofVWge Pochnp,r

. Pae 26 of 29 • • S vould be expected to be the maiket growth and what the market had actually grown,, Government's rninmurn agricultural price has been held to he reasonable basis for assessing the rnafket value of the acquired lands in Jai Sing/i (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kurnar (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 Sushi! Kunuir (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference. Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the (iovcrnment minimum price for agricultural lands in I)elhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situatiOn of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the S evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the JO! Airpoi.t., Indian. Oil and Bharat Petroleum. Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Rharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from N.F1-8 from Shiv .M.urti side to I)warka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing the • acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the RJciencc Couit In the considcicd opinion of this Court, On account ol aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in Vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10 increase over and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the adquiied lands is the I! App. No. 1.1.95/2008 & connected AppeIs of ViUge BhrthI Jt.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViHago F3ijwasan A.App. No; 111/2010 & connected Appeals of ViHap,d Pochanpur Pgn,27 of 29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Cou rt in .MirZa / Naus/irwan Khan vs. Gollector, (197)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a CO/IC/us/On is reached that there was the possibility, of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such Conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proced to determine its market Value taking into account the imcrease in price attributable to such building potentiality"

¶39Considering the fat that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation it is broad probabilities of the instant cases which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the GoverniTlent's minimum Jj1:iCcs !br the agricultural lands for computing the fair market Value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands di.ITercntly and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur arc treated at par with their counter-parts i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village 13ijwasan. However, while relying upoh the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), 1 am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Cuii in these matters on account of the aforesaid locatiorul advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question. .40. Accordingly, these appeals are pa:ly allowed to the eXtent of awarding I O% increase over nd above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pe1aining to Village BhaihaJ and Village .Bijwasaj. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of . Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of LAA.pp No. 1i.9/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.p No. 291,2010 & Connect('d Appeals of Villa BUwasar A.Ap. No. 1 1/20.10 & connoctc'd Appeals of VWlage Pochanpur 1ge 28 of 29 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined 16,50,000/- per hi.gh4 fo] th e Category 'A' land and @tl Z14,69,600/-per bjha for the Category 'B' lands i.ji queStion. 1\ On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, s.atutorv benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the udwncnt reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which leriod of delay no interest onthe enhanced compensation shall he paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the alresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the Compensation amount, if any, deposited by either hide with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. I)ecree sheets he accordingly prepared. '41, Jamiary 06, 2012 p K h - (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE •/ç L1 I , Aop. No. 13O:)/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Rharthal A.pp, No. 204/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.1pp. No .11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.AIP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Arnit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, •Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N. S .egi and Mr.H. S .Rautela, Advocate Mr. S .K.Rout, Mr.B .K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tornar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Arnita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O1RDEl ()

12.01.2012 C.M. AppL No, 752/2012 (For correcti. This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6th.January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6 January, 2012 is that inparagraph no: 40 of the afbrcsaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1 J 95/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary ConTectiolis he carried out forthwith. In view of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of tJNIL (;AuR) JUDGE JANUARY 1.2, 2012 . pkb LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Novernberc[, 2011 Pronounced on. January 06, 2012 ± LA.APP. 1084/2008 RAMA MEHRA & ANR Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates• Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate • Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus • 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