Sanjay Bansal v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. ,Mt;N ~k ~ GAUR) 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. .. IN I.HE HIGH COURI OF DELF11 AT NEW DELHI 0/ (1 .Reseived on: Woveinhei i8, 2011 L±c2 1QL.

(GRII)-A) LA.iPP.] 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHAi4A ..... Appellant through: Mr.B.S.J\4aan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Veima, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohias, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvindcr. Godara,, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate N4r.S.K.Rou and 1\4r.B.K.Routiav, Mr..M.Azarn Ansari. Advocates. r,Panka Vvek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, M.r.Samit Khosla and Mr.i)han.aiij ay M.chlawat, Advocates MrJLS. R.autehL Advocate Mr.1.S.Dahiya, Advocate I\4r.Sandcep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Jnpathi, Advocate, Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr,Fi.S.Rai.itela., (Advocates for respondent in appcais filed by UOI) versus LN ION 01 INDIA & ANR Respundcnti I hruugh: Mr.Sanjav Poddar, Senior Advocate Mr .Saatay Pathal<. Mr.Mo.h trac. . adha'' arid M .Navi I a 1 wai ii, Ms K K auni udi K i &d OLCa , fi / 01 Mr.Ajav Verina. Msiecnashaw Soid. 1VIr.Mukc;h S. K Sethi, M wn r.Pan Mathur. Kumar, Mr Mr. K unal Sharma. Advocauc fh DD/\ .A.APP.4 12 ,2008 &. CM. No.4096/2008 (C1'OSS-'(.)hjcCtiolIS), A.APP.452'2Q08 I ' \P' +'" 'i )08 I '\APP 88/.008 ' N 5990i20 I U ( i o htccti' 's) i,A.APP.69 7/2008 & (1MNo.433!20O (Cr'S-Ohjecto?1s): LA.AP P.701/20(18 & CM.N.5 I 0,'2009 (Cross-O(ctionL . APP768!'20(A I A.APP,'77()/2008 .A.Ip No. .1))/

2.0 & connccted AppoIs of Vii Igo BhihI - A.Arjp No. '94/20c & Corioeced Appejis oi Village Biiwssn .App. \' i:lr!?Oic & coniici'd Appeas Of \'i1Iae roceanptir Page oi :i ..: LA.APP.771/2008 &. CM.NoA25/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; 1,A.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.61 1/2009 (CrOss-Objections); LA.APP775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; 1,A.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; 1,A.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.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 14/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.8 1 8/200; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; 1A.A1'11 829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; 1,A.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.7991/2009 (Cross-objections); LA.APP.899/2008; 1A.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.95 1/2008 & • CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; L.A.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; 1.A.APP.986'2008 & CM.No.572!2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.AP .9J20;1-..A.APP. 1 029/2008& CM.No. 1 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); 1.A.APP. 1031/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); I A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); Li-\.APP. 1 046/2008; • 1AAPP. I 047/2008;LA.APP. I 048/2008& CN1.No785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009. (Cross-objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008; • • LA.APP. 1 051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APF, 1 052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.41 6/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1. 055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & CM.No.752/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No. 1557/201 1 • (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 1 7259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 • & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); • LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); I ,A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Ohjections); LA.APP. I 084/2008& CM.No:1 7302/2008 (Cross-ObjectiOns); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objectiols); LA.APP. I 087i'2008& CM..No6 1 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 093/2008; A.APP.] 094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; LA.APP.1 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1 108/2008 & CMJ'io.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 109/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008 & . CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.1 111/2008; LA.APP.1 112/2008 & C1VLNo.3831/2009 (Cross-Obj.ectiotis): LAAPP.1 113/2008 & CM..No.3826!2009 (Cross-Objections); L.A.APP. 1115/2008; LA.APP. 1116/2008; LA.APP. 1121/2008; • 1 A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP. 1129/200% & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); .1 J\.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.1 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cioss-Objections); • LA.APP.1 133/2008; LAAPP.1135/2008 & CMNo.7442/2009 (Cross-(Dbjections); • LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 tCross-Objections); L.AAPP. 1140/2008; •LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.1157/2008; L.A.APP.1 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 • •• (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.1 159/2 A. 008; LAPP. 1161/2008; L.A.APP. ii 66/2008; LA.APP. 1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1168/2008; • • LA.APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP.11 71/2008; LA.APP.1 172/2008; LA.APP. 1173/2008; • •LA.APP.1 I 75/2008; LA.APP.1 178/2008; LA.A1 1P.1 179/2008; LA.APP.1 18 1/2008; - LA.APP. Ii 82/2008; LA.APP. 11 83/2008& CM.No.6933 '2009 (Cross-Objections); • • LA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.1 185/2008 LA.APP.1186/2008& CM.No.7013!2009 AApp. No. 195/2008 8 connected Appeals 0f Village Oharihal • • • • • l.A Ape. No. 29/1/2010 & connectdd Appeals of Village Bijwasan • • • • • l.A.App. No .:L1]j2010 & connectea Appeak of Village Pochanout • Page 2 0129 (Cross-Objections); 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. 1 197/2008; 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. 121 3/2008; LA.APP:1223/2008; LA.APP. 1 225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1 241/2008& CM.No.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008; I ..A.APP. 1275/21)08; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP.127712008; LA.APP. 1279/2008;

1.A.AP1. 1280/21)08; LA.APP. 1281/2008 ; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008; LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; 1,A.AP1.42/2009 & CM.No.7461201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No,71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.7412009; 1,A.APP.7912009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 08/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; LA.APP.1 36/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009; I A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. I 45/2009; 1A.APP.l62/2009; LA.APP.187/2009: LA.APP,19012009; T.A.APP.191/2009; LA.APP. 1 97/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; 1,A.APP:•1 99/2009; LA.APP.20 1/2009; LA.AH'.20212009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA. APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Ohjcctions); LA.APP.2 10/2009 & CM.No.970/201 1 (Cross-Objections);

1.A.AP.21 1.12009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; . LA.APP.230!2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24 1/2009; L.A.APP.245/2009; LA,APP.246/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009;

1.A..APP.295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; i.A.AP.P.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; 1_,A.APP.44712009; LA.APP.458/2009; 11A.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.481/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; 1,A.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; L/\.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.506/2009;

1..A.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009:. 1,A..APP.5 10/2009; 1,A.APP.5 11/2009; LA.AP1.5 1.2/2009: LA.APP.5 13/2009:. LA .APP.567/2009; LA.AP.572/2009; 1,A.AP1. 15/2010; LA.APP,45,/201 0; LA.APP.48/201 0; 1 .A.APP.404/201.0; LA.APP, 13/2011:LA.APP. 1138/2008: LA.APP.1 17(/2008; 11 77/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 C . (Relating to Notification No. F. 1 0(30)/96/L& B/LA/i 3417 dated 13. 1 2.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) 0/ /0 1eserved on: December 08, 2011 Lcii2 c4.on: January06, 2012 I I '\APP 294i2010 (VILLAGE-BIJWiS'N)

i)F.VENDFR KUMAR . ..... Appellant 'Through: . Mr.R. S .'['omr, Mr.Vireridia Singh 1i\.App. No 11.95/2003 & connected Appeals of Village Bhartlial '.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connctcted Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App No .1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

. .idvocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray. Advocates for appellant (in R2L14, 38. 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOi & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav. and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for IJOl/LAC Mr.S.K.Soiankj and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI, - Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr,Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. J.A.APP.11/2O1O LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA..APP, 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP, 59/2010 LA,A1P. 70/2010 .LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LAAPP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 'LAAPP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 • LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APF. 285/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APF. 294 12010 • LA.APP.295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 1.A.APP, 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.AP1. 346/2010 LA APP. 347/2010 LA.APP, 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 A.i\PP,. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP; 352/2010 'LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP.31 54/2010 1,A.AP1. 356/2.010 LA:APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 • LA.APP. LA.APP. 365i'2010 360/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 361/2010. LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/201.0 L,APP. 407/2.010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2.010 LAAPP. 88/2010 LA.APP. 22/2010 LA.APP, 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 72.5/2010 LA.APP. 72.6/2010 iA.APP 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2011) LA.APP. 731/201.0 LA.APP. 7322010 LA.APR 750/2010 J.A.APP. 759/2010 .. ... .APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.API 964/2010 LA.APP. 2861/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP.: 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 L.A.APP. 99/2010 &. LA.APP, 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F,l0(30')96-1,&.B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 & Award No. 28/200212003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND LA.App, No .1,195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Br,'arthsi' LA.App. No. 291/,01() & ; onnected 4ppea!s of Vd !ape Bijwasao i\.App. No. J.1i/20jQ & connected Appeals of Villag5 Pochanpur 8° 4 of 29 LA.APP. 111/2010 ]..A.APP. 160/20 10 LA.APP. 228/2010 L'\.APP. 254/2010 - LA.APP. 292/2010 LA.APP.307/2010 LA.APP. 395/2010 LA APP. 420/2010 LA.APP. 466/2010 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP, 660/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010 LA.APP. 919/2010 LA.APP. .65/2011 LA,APP. 1200011 I .A APP. 4 76/2 011 LA.APP.523/201 I LA.APP. 36/201 I 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. 432i210 LA.APp. 489/201 0 LA.APP. 639/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LA.APP. 1052/201 0 LA.APP. 116/2011 LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 485/2011 LA.APP, 525/201 1 LA.APP. 554/2011 LA.APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 LA.APP. 261/2010 LA.i-\PP. 305/2010 LA.APP. 392/2010

1...A.APP. 397/2010 LA.APP. 433/2010 LA.APP. 57712010 LA.APP. 640/201 0 LA.APP 741/2010 LA.APP; 784/2010 1A.APP. 61/2011 LA.A.PP. 117/2011 LA.APP, 129/20 1 1,A.APP;521/201 1 LA. APP. 52612011. LA.APP. 591/2011 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP, 215/2010 LA.APP. 250/2010 LA.APP, 270/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 LA.APP. 393i2010 LA.APP, 412/2010 LA.APP. 434/2010 LA.APP. 635/2010 LA APP. 657/2010 LA.APP. 758/2010 !.,A.APP, 9I8/2010 LAAPP. 64/201 1 LA.APP. 119/2011 L.A.APP, 429/2011 L.A.APP 522/2011 LA.APP. 535'201 1 S (GRID-C) Lierveclon:Decemjcj/j2ojj Pronounced on Jan/iary_Q2O]2 I LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEF-IAJ RAM AND ORS. Through Appellants Mr.B .1). Sharma, Mr. S .K. Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20,23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40,44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71.) Mr.SIB. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) .Mr.R.aj esh . Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advoc.ate with Mr San ay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohjtrao Jadhav, and Ms .NavI in Swain. Advocates for tJOi/LAC Mr..Banke' Biharj Sharma, Mr.Kunai Sharma and Mr. Somer K. Seth, Advocates for I)i)A.. C versus UNION OF INI)1A & ANR Through LA.App, NC). 11.95/2003 & connected Appecls of ViI!ge Bharthal

[J\.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appea's of VWage Bijwasan LA.pp No 11-112010 & connected Appeals of Village Podhanpur.

. (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96L& B/1,A/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & • Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pocli.anpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER • %.

06.01e2012 Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants 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 Noti/Ication No.F. 10(3096-L& /3/LA/1341 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to gcograp1ica1ly contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. Acquisition process for planned development of Dwarka Phase-Li• in I)elhi, commenced with the issuance of Noti/Icaijon Of 13 December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, perta1nng to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue l/tates inclu(Jing villages in question, i.e., 13ha.rthai, Bijwa.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 compensation ), 713.82 lacs per acre br l3lock 'A' (level field -- with to1) soil) and @ 712.32 lacs per acre for Block '13' (without top soil). • I)issatisljed with the assessment of market value of their acquired LA.App. No. 1l9,/2OO8 & éonnected APpoIs ofVjiaFe Bhartha lJ;App. No. 29d12010 & cdnnocled Appeals of ViHge Bjwasn IA.App. No .11:./2010 & coonected AppeIs of ViIIgo Pochnp,ir PaRe 6 of 29 . . . agricultural Lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation Z15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and@ l 3.36 lacs per acre ft)r their Block '13' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive .Enginer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and

(2011) 2 SCC 246; AnjanjMoluJ9essaj vs. State of Goa andAnr,

(2010)13 SCC 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. Stale of Harpana ondAnr,,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs, Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisitio & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Ahr, vs. Unioti of India AIR 2005 SC. 3467; Ghindha Falcira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; S . Ruina P'!and (since deceased) through LRs ,'s. Union of India & Aur,, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); (Idho Dass vs. State of' ilurpana & Ors., 2010(9) SCAJ.I 41; chukas vs. State of' Punjah & Ors., 2011 (9) S('A I J 362; A vinash DhavEji IVaik vs. State of Mdiarashtra, (2009) 1 1 SCC 1 7 1; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.((,) No, 4143/2003 titled as Sint. indu Kh orana vs. Grain Sabh a & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010 ) Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; Thukarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, I.A.App. No. I 195/2004& connected AppeJs of Village Bharthai .A.App. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViHage 131jwasan .'.App. No 111/201.0 & connected Appeals of ViUsge Pochanpur . Pare 7 of 29 S Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. l"s'. Union of India & Anr,, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Ghand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Maiuiger, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rámeshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valli:yammat/ and Anr vs. Special Tehsilthir (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahahad Development Authority, (2004) 10. SCC 745; Mahesli Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State Of Maharashira, AIR 2009 SC 2238; iapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs, Union of india & Aim", • 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled. as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority &.Anr., 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) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of india, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of india, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhuie R(Wm vs. Union of India, 2010

(170) 1)1:1' 371. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan. learned arguIng counsel for theappellants that the location and situation of the acquired 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 foture alone. it was pointed out by Mr.RS.Toiar, Counsel, for appellants i.hat I)eihi-Re\varjJ odhpur broad gage rai 'vay line of Vi11ae Biij wasan passes through the land of Village .Bharthal, dividing it into two paris, i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IGI Airport, New i)elhi \.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthai I\.tpp. No. 29'l12010 & connocted Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.Apip. No, 11.1/70] 0 & connected Appeals of Villag0 Poahanpur . 2 5p0 8 of 2'9 I and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-lI again divides the agricultural land into two portlons; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, i3ijwasan and •Samalkha. 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 for the extension ol IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for cstab]ihing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum an.d the lands of Village Bharchal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of I)warka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and I)hool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizras/rnap to highlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur . and Village Dhool 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 S potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16th October, 2000 vide which land use Of the th]!ee villages in question was changed from agricu Itural toresidential,' • •• '. cOrnrnerciaj/jnduslnjal etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthai had ceased to be rural in view of the Notficatjon of 24' October, 1994,

It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout learned counsel for the appellants that the aforcsaid wo Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rwna /cApp. No. 1.95 /2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LAu\pp., No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L.f\pp, No. 1.11/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochonpur . . yo Reddi & Ors, vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Coup in its later deision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must he adjudged lcepi.ng in view the development in the area over a period-of time and the same cannot be limited to a hear future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put theland to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality. 1 0. Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Shartha, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from Z52 lacsto Z62 lacs and merely 'heause of the said variation these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Coup, because [here 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 Anani iWo/u Dessai v. State of Goa (lndAnj, (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to he taken as, representing the market price of the land which comes to 57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instancs, therefore, reliance placed by the 'S. Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates for determining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous. ii. Assessmeiit of market value of the 'aqured land was sought by Mr.R.Godara learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the hsis of ic-detemiincd rates fixed by the Govei-nmãnt 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

14.pp. No. 1.95/2008 & connected Appes of VNago Bhrtha L&Ap. No. 294/ 1 0 & connected Appeals of Vidage Bijwecan App No, 111,'2p10 & connected Appeals of Vifiage POchanpu' . . Pg(? 10 of 29 0, sought On the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the I.& DO rates of the • developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-

i)etermincd Rates (PI)Rs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant - Impulse India Private Linited of.LA. App; No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- af 'Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.2612002-2003 dated • 23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No. 19012 of 2006. (Refrrred to in cross-examination of appellani dated

7.7.200) • Does not account tar the fci that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely afjected the rates of land in the area fbr more than 15 years bfore the Notflcation tinder Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. c,) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued lv the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by virious decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the lion 'bie Supreme Court in Sangunihala versus Tahsiidar, 2010(3) SCC 661. a') Ignores the evidence and other fliciors which as per established law has to be considered h(--re ascertain /,i the value of the land under acquisition. • e) Does not decil with disparity in vaiz.ie of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent • case of C'hinda Fakiri Pat ii versus Special Land • Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.547.5 of 2007. The lion 'h/c Supreme Court has specifIcally held that Sale Deed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in A.App. No.1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharhal i./.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasan • LA.App. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur cage 11 of 29 case the average sale piice is lower. Further 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 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 ZI3, 36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme. Court including in Subh Rain vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment ., refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.] framed on 2 7.2.2007. • . g Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide A1otfication of the Municipal Corporation qf Delhi, the land use of Village Dhooi Siras and Bharihai was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterpian and IVotthcat:'.ons of Government for land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residantial. commercial and other permissible uses. it Is also per tnen[ to mention that the ajoeiiant lead evidence in repect of the 74th amendment of the Constitution of India, w.ef 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the }vJ.unicival Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor - was elected from there.. No Pancho yat elections were held in the area. h.) Refused to apply the law laid clown in All? Supreme Court 347, Ranvir .Si;'igh and Aur vs. U.ion of india and refused to consider the fict that the developiient in the area has a direct e,èct an the price that a willing purchaser 'i.'ould pay for the.suhjecr land. I) ignored the frici that I? evpondE.n/ No. 2 had a/so J\.App. No. 119512008 & connected Appeek of VfflagoBharthai LA..App. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village 132.wasan [I\.App. NC). 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Vi2age Pochanpur . . • Page 12 of Z9 1] auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about Z2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdei;elôped land. D The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k, Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired/or development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. it is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to he agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. • I) ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although the)) 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 theproperty acquired the fuct whether the land has got building potentiality to be used Jr building purposes in immediate or in near future neecLi 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 putting up residential ,S quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as houe sires in the near fiaure. In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have beet-i provid ed With a prayer that the appellants of this appeal he treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appcilant, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that th effect of lA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I..App. o. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasn IApp, No 11.1/2020 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh .Dattatray Thirthkar i's. Sta.e of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) Ors. V. Union of india & Anr, 1.76(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-

i)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 appel]ant.s are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and .adequarc market 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 thatthough as per Section 51 A of ,r/ Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale .i)eed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence fbi 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 propert, proximity to the village etc. are also required to he considere:1 and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market:value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in JaiLal Union o/India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Saipai & Ors vs. Unhn of india, (1 997) 11 S CC 423; L a! Lii and i's. Union of India qnd A nr,

(2009)15 SCC 769; L.A. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar i's, Union o[indja, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increase in price, in a short period cannot be taken to he realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in évi deice the seller LA.App NC). 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of ViPIa8e Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViPIge Bijwasen i.A.App, NC). 111/2010 & connecuCd AppeTs of Village Pochanpur . . Pgc' 14 of 29 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, &as, 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-I)etcrnjjned Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (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 (ioverrlment as on St April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneous'y dcterniiiied by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kurnar (supra) appreciation @ lO% per annum has been graflted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the Reference Court while taking into eonsdertjon the apprecIation , 2% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ I O% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-ohjcctiois to the aforesaid extent. 1 7. Afte, considering the rival SubmisSions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal 0.1 the impugned judgneni, the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchasej' to a willing .A.App. No. 119h/;Q08 & connected Appeals of ViUage Bharthil 1 App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village RijWasan A,App, No. 11:I12010 & cornectOaApppp, of VUlage Pochanpur . Pace 15 of .9 ci seller and the best evidence is the' cornprab1e sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to he considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apc.x Court in Udiw Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- 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 commerc.iai industrial, educational, religious or ally other kind of importance or because of its explosive population: the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the . buildings, be they i'esidential commercial or industrial, as the case may be; possihili of obtaining water and electric supply ,1br occupants of huildngs to be put up on that land; (iv,) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purpose; • (v,) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots ordeveloped residential extensions in the vicinity or close proxim :ty of the acquired lana' ('vi,) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the. like in the surrounding areas of the acquired iad which may become available to the occupiers o/buzlthns, if built on the acquired land; and • ' (vii lands al-ound the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to speczm5. afew

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose of develojment as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of fctors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have 1:0. bear in mind the purpose l'or A.Ap. No. 1 1 95POO8 & connected APPeAs of Village Bharthal l.A.App. No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwsan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeak of Village Pochanpur which the lands were sought to he acuired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been sb observed by the Apex Court in Avinas/ (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Alma Sing/i (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exmplars of large pieces of land were not available. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr i's, M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714'fhd legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon . on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly: situated having similar advantage available to them even as • regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land. It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the t:rue market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that The burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the .A.pcx Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with ath'antage. • 2!. . Apex Court in r/al/iyarnma/ (Supra), while taking note of the fict that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had. held that deduétion of 40% towards developmeitt charges was improper. The pertinent observatiOns made by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- I.A.App. No. I 1S5/2008 & cortriected Appeals of Village Bharth [/\.App. No, 294/2010 & Coflflected.Appeais of Village Elijwasan hA.App. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur "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 he considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidti, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly diffrrenl, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar kinds, or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to.. It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair inarket rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in. Chindha Fakira Paul (Supra), which are as IO1lO\.VS:- - "Ii is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale t}'ansaclions in respect of the laid 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 venclee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons a,c!lng in the normal market coniltijons are the real basis 10 determine the market value. Principles to determine the market 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 four fhciors - situation of the /anc nature of development in surrounding circa, avaiiabilif-j.' of land fr development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. in rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the v/c in/tv, increase in prices would he slow, steady and giadual, without any sudden spurts or lumps. A.App. No. 11.95/2009 & connected /\ppeals of Vifiage Bharthal i.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasari LA.App. No. 1.31/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocharpur On the ot'her hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the Tdevelopment is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big citths, due to rapid development and high demand Jr land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in :telnote rural, areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices st'agnat'ed for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a sign fIcant djfference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market 'value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best he 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 adopt'ed in the absence of clear and specific evzdence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specJic evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken -ta the mode of determining the market value by providii.g appropriate escalation over the prot'ed market value of nearby lands in previous years (as videnced by sale transactions' or 0cquisition), where there Is no e idence of any con temporaneo us sale transact ions or icquist'ons of comparable ianc/s in the neighbourhood. The .aid method is reasonably safi where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a.few years, that is upo Jour to five yeats; Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it'. i'e/ates to a, neighbouring land. What may be ci reliable standard if the gap is ontj.' ci years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For exam le. /ir determining, the market' value of a land acqui;'ed. in 1992, adopting the annual increase method i.i'jtti re,frirence to a sale or LA.App. No, 1195i200R& cc,nnocted Appeals of Village L3harthe! LA.Apo. No, 791/2010 & connected Appeals of Village 8ilwaan I.A.App. No .11,1/7030 & connected Appeals of Village Poctiapur 1'-Je 19 of 29 ':9 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pilfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the jrate'of annual increase may itself undergo drastic chcvige apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase."

¶24'l'his Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State industrial Development corporation (HSIDc) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales mcthods What was said by the Apex Court in HSII)C (Supra) is as under: When different categories of lands (àr lands with derent . situational advantages) are acquired for the same purpose, tar farming of a residential layout,. courts have sometImes ft it that determination of their value with refrrence to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same not fIcation." Uidisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and aroi.ind acquired iand of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied • upon by the appellants is of Village. Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale

i)ecds vide which religious institution, i.e.. Radha Swami Satsang, fleas had purihased the agricultural land in Village Pocharipur at a ptic.e which varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Whether aforesaid Sale I)eeds (Ex . PW .1/4 to Ex.PW-l'} 0) which arc basically between one set of co--owners and Radha Swami Satsang fleas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required to he answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale I)eeds LA.pp. No. 1195/2008 & coni,ected Appeals of Village Rharthel LA4pp. No. 294/201.0 & Connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan r.A.7pp. No. I 1/2010 & connoctcd Appeals of Village Pochanpur

- S (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from Z 52 iaés to Z62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds (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 1 parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot he treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in questiot. The special need of the purchaser Of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW.-l./4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Flad the purciiaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., 1?adha Swami Satsang, J3eas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale I)eed excuted on 25111 March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Sing/i i's. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village Marnurpur was discarded while holdin.g that the same cannot be treated 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 come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their aequlsition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not cCveloped lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing I.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & Connectec Appeak of V;l!age l3harthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Vitage Bijwasan L.A.App, No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Vijiage Pochanpu I. // S market price of the land in question would pay such a high priceunless and until suchpurchase is ieait• for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-] /4 to l/x.PW-l/l0) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. So •far as the sale exemplar of Village Samaikha

relied upon by the appellants is concerhed, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Dcccl of 27 °' January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (l-ix.PW-1/li) 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., therefbre, 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 q LIC S (ion. Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the 'c'icinity, now it is required to' be considered as to whether adoption of L& 1)0 circular rates for the deve[oped lands a nd Pre-J)eterrnined Rates for the alternate plots by th6 DJ).A ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question. Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Redd and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Deeiopmen.t Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995(2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. ifowever, in either of the said cases Whether it be the determination o/'lie market value of the acquired land with hi.iiding potentialit with ref rence to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well cive!oped layout in the neighborhood A.App. No. .1 195/1008 & .connected.Appe Is of ViH -age Oharthal A.App. Nc. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasan l.ARpp. No.11.1.2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur' . 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 ofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes iievitabie Jar the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to be frtched by the sales of plots in the layouts, • relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price • which the plots could have fetdied if sold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice friched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with reference 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 vakth by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its hziiding potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 11.5th of the market • value of the land found out according to its actual user siice resort to the method of giving increased value for subh building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, far building plots even if formed in the acjuired land. • '. 31. In 'view Of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by • the i)DA' after acquiring the agricuJtural lands, developing the same, and S transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-J)etcrmjned Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. 'Following the dictum of Lal chtind (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jài Singh (Supra) and Sush,i Kuinar (Supra) has excluded the DI)A' rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assesing the market value of App. No.1 1.9b/7C08 & connected Appeals of Village L'hartl,al I..A.App No, 2941201.0 & connected Appeals of Village F3ijwasan • LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 23 01 2 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, 1 find that the Reference Court . / V has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developd land or the I)DA's Pre-I)etermined Rates for alternate aliotiñents for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural land.s in question. Now what is required to be seen is whetherrogressivc increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of

i)warka Phase-f. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for th respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalat;on at the compounded rate M. lO% per annum is taken from-the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of' Dwarka Phase-i and the instant Notification for development of I)warka Phase-Il, still the, Price fixed by • ',

the land Acquisition Collector is moie than the aforesaid escalated price • and therefore, the enhancement grahted by the Reference Court is unjuslifled. Aforesaid argument does not hold good in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a • .. • ) reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e.. of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-TI is of sixteen years and therefore, it would he unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value b providin.g appropriate 'L.App. No. 119b/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bha -thal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l./\.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocli-anpur

a 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 @12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalatibn I O% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potcntjality of the acquired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushi! Kunuir (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court @ 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in I)elhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for deteri.-nining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Relerence Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agi.icultural land by the Government w.e.f. l. April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or ,not. Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertainng to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 241 October, 1 994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to he urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to .A.App. No. I 195/2006 & connected Appeels of ViPege BIiarthn A App. No. 294/2010 & connectod 1'ppesk of ViHage Bijwasan LA.App. No, 1.11/2010 & connected AppeiIs of VflIage Pochenpur

Pge 25 of 29 I 4 1 presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideied as developed lands, The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Salsang Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for 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 to agricultural use. I-lad there been increasein 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. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village. Pochanpur to a religious insti1tion and another sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 I) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of.Rmlha Swami Salsang ]3eas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) are comparable with the acquired lands and SO the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of VWage Saniaikha (Lx. PW-1/1 1) Cannot be treatd to be sLjfrcient ground to grant higher cOnlpensatio n while relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in viewof the albrcreferrecI dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development corporation (iSJDc (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to he awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the mInimum 1price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land in I)cihi, which generally factors in the Iise of price due to higher potentialjt. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what A.App. No. 1195/2093 & connect(d Appeals of Village BhrthI LA.tpp. No. 294/201.0 & connect(?d Appeals of village Bijwsn A-A APp. No. 111120.10 & connect(.d Aopeals of Village Pochanpur S 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 Sing/i (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kumar (Supra) and][ 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 Singb (Supra) and Sushi! Kurnar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasari has rightly, relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in I)clhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bhartha! 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 froni the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the JOT Airport., Indian Oil and 13harat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village .Bharthal and there being a 1.00 meters vide road starting fron. NH-8 From Shiv .M.urti side to I)warka Sub-City, PartI 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 Reference Court. In the considercd opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, 'certainly assume higher building potentiality 'beilig in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What iersuades 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 acquired lands is the. .A.i\pp. No. 1 192008 8 connected AppeIs of ViIfge BhrthaI LA.App, No. 294/2010 & connected AppeIs of Vfllage Bijwsn I.A.A'pp. No; 1.11/2010 &' connected Appeels of Village Pochanpur settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apcx.t Court in MIIrza Naus/jerwan K/urn vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such Oonclus ion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentialit""

¶39Considering the fat that it would be very difficult to provide a definite val LIC qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing iir compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases which persuades mc to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices fbr the agricultural lands for computin.g the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no sPciai features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants, of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kuinar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 1 0% incrase over and above the • markei value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the aftiresaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding I O% increase over and above the market 'value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Vii1ae Bharthal and Village J3ijwasan, While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village BhartIa1 and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of (:App No, 1.195/2008 & concocted Appeals of Village Bharthai .A.App. No. 294,2010 & concocted Appesis of Village Bijwasai .A.App. No, 1U,/j1 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur )

1.: the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three vii lages in question is dterrnined @ Z16,50,000/- per,bighq for the ---.' '-- Category 'A' land and @ l4,69,600/- pei bjha for the Category 'B' lands in question. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded,, statutor' benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judment reported in Sunder i's, UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 arc. granted,'except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal,' for \vhich perjod of delay no interest on the enhanced cornpensatioj shall he paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. The aho\'e captioned appeals and crossobjections are disposed of in the aforesaid 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 sheel;s he accord ingk' prepared. Januar06, 2012 pl<b (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE I..A,App, No.1395/2008 & Connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A,App No. 294/2010 & connected Appealis of Village Bijwasn LJ\.Aop. No....1.1/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 29 n129 H IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.SVerrna, 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, MrB.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 MrSanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms NavIin Swain, Ms .1K .Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOi Mr.Ajay \/errna, M....K.Sethi, Ms. Arnita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunai Sharma and. • Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORB El

12.01.2012 C.M. App!. No. 752/2012 (For. correction). 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 ape1lnts. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6hh1 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LAApp.No, 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary • colTrections be caftjed Out forthwith, I In vic.wcf the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 12, 2012 • pkb LA.App.NO. 1195/2008 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November JIL, 2011 Pronounced on: January06, 2012 -I- LA.APP. 993/2008 SANJAY BANSAL 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.FJ.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 forDDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR