Nanu Ram & Anr v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as Ranhir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IN TIlE FUGU COURT OF DE1JH AT NEW DElHI (1_•' (j Reserved on..' November 18, 2011 I:c!i?.!1cI. O( 12 .Q!ay,

(GiI)-A) LA..APP.]1 95/2008 (VULLAGE-BUARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA Appellant I. hrough: MrB.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai l'rakash, I\4s.Smil:a Maan, Mr. K.SA'errna, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand 'Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, • Mr.R.ohias, Advocate. Mr. Raghuvi nder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S,Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rou and Mr,B..K.Routj'av, Mr.M.Azarn Ansari. Advocates, Mr.Pankal Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and iVirDhanaiijay Mehlawt,.Advocatcs N'lIr.Il.S. 1,auteIa, 1'-d'ocite Mr.l.S.Dahiya. Advocate Mr.Sandecn Thakhui-. Advocate Mr.Atul i'i"ipathi, Advocate:. Mr.N .5 N egi and 1 14(r.11.1.1 .a,ii ft-'ia, (\dvocates li respondem in appeals filed by UO) versus . . LNION oi INDIA & ANR. Respondents hi'ou.h: Mr. Sanjav Poddar. s i Ad'a ii t Mr .Sa e r Pathats, Mr2Yiohitra(....ddh'y .ind M r.'Na \' . Ms K Kwniudi Is n h d\ud to I A Jul Mr.Ajav Verina, Ms.Becna.sha\ Soid. iVlr,Mukcsh Kumar, Mr S K .Srthi, Mr.Pawnn Mathur. Mr. K unal Shanna. AdvocaLe II DDA .AA J, j),4 A ll /2008 &', CMNotu9i/2f) (CrOsS-Objctj5), f.A.APP. 1A2/2OO1 i P. 8S/ & I u iOiUJ U ( io (#D!CLuUIL &. CM.No.43!2)(Yl Wross-Ohjetions): I .A.APP 701 P0S & CM No.51

0,'20Q9 (Ci's-OHcctivio

& co.inr'cted AppenI fViIig BharUid '..\oo, N3, '94/,'iijC & coIIneclCd App:.jls orViIIg Biiwini Af\1)I) \,. ,u:,':'o,io & Conflcc'rl App, als Pochanpur

. . . 1,A.APP.77 1/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-OIyjections) LAAPP.772/2008; 1J\.APP773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (CrossOhjections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.6 1 /2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.AFP782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-ob)ections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & - CM.No.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.7991/2008 & CM. .No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.805/2008 LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.8 1 3/2008 & CM.No. I 795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 I 4/2008 & CM.No806/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.8 I 8/2008; LA.APP.8 1 9/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; 1,A.APP;832/2008; LA.APP833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LAAPP845/2008; LAAPP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); TA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.95 1/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; 1,A.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP978/2008; LA.APP.986i2008 & CM.No.572!2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP. I 029/2008& CM.No. 1 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1031/2008 &. CM No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.A.PP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (ross-Ohjecdons); LA.APP. 1.046/2008; LA.APP. 1 047/2008;LA.APP. I 04812008& CM.No.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420,'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008; A.APP. 1 051/2008 & CM.No. I 7262/2008 (Cross-0bjections);LA.APF.1052/2008; I A.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.4 I 6/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2.008 & CM No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); .LA.APP. 1 055/2008;LA.APP. 10.57/2008 & t:113 A. APP. iO60/20O8;LA.APPTT1J272O 1MT o. 572O1 Ci -ets); LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & 04.No.623/2009 (Cross-Ohjecl;ions); I ..A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1 081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-01-.)jections):. LA.APP. 1 084/2008& CM,No. 1 7302/2008 (Cross-Objections); 1..A.APP. I 086/2008 & CM..No.24481/2008 (Cross-Objections): .1.A APP. I 087/2008& CM.No.61 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 093/2008;.A.APP. 1.094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; 1 A APP, 1103/2008 & CM.No.441 /2009 (Cross-Objections):i.AAPP. 11 081.008 & CM .N/o.3 839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 109/2008: LA.APP. 1110/2008 & CM.Nc.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. 1.A.APP.1 111/2008; LA.APP.1 1 12/2008 & CM.Nc.3 83 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA APP. 1 .113/2008 & (_'M. No.3 826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APF. 1115/2008; LA.APP.i 1 16/2008; L..A.APT'.i 121/2008: A.APP. 1126/2008; .LA.APP. 1129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeci ions); JA '\PP II 30/2008, I \ APP 11 1 i2008 & CM 1O 66/2009 ioss Obi ( Ocii A.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP. 1135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); I A.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008. (Cross-Objections); L.A APP.). 1401f2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; 1,A.APP.1 157/2008; LA.APP. 1158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 159/2008; LA.APP. 11 61.72008; LA.APP. 1166/2008:,

1.A.APP. 11 67/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1168/2008; LA.APP.1 170/2008; LA.APP.I 171/2008: LA.APP.1 I 72/2008; LA..APP.1 17.3/2008; LA.A .PP.11 75/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LAAPP.1 179/2008; LA,.APP. 1181 /2008 LA.APP. 11 82i'2008; LA.APP. II 83/2008& CM.No.6933.!2009 (Cross-Objections); L.A.A.PP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008 LA.APP. I. I 86/2008& CM.No.701 :3/2009 I A.App. No. 1 15/2038 & connened Appea's of Vinge Bherthei .A App. No. 29/1/201.0 & connocl.ed Appeals of ViHage i3ijwas.3n tJ\.App. No.L.1.]./2010 & connected Appeek of ViIIg Pochmoie Page 2 o 29 S . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1, 191/2008; 1.AAPP. 1192/2008: LA.APP, 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LAAPP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1 197/2008; LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(ross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LAAPP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 121 1/2008; LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA:APP. 121 3/2008; LAAPP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. I 225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Qbjections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1241/2008& CM.No.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008; I A.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP.1 276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008;

1.A.AP1. 1280/2008; 1.A.APP. 1281/2008: LA.APP. 1283i'2008; LA.APP.1284/2008; LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APPI39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; 1,A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/201 1 (Cross-Objections); J.A.A1P. 1 08/2009; LA.APP. 1091/2009: LA.APT. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; 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, 145/2009; LA.APT. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009: LA.APP, 190/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.201 /2009: LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2 10/2009 & CM.No.970/20 ii (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.21 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; 1,A.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227/2009 LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241 /2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; I...A.APP295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009;

1.. A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.AP?447.'2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.,466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.48 1/2009; LA.AP1'.489/2009; 1,A.APP.490/2009; I.A.APP.491/2009; LA.AP1.493i'2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.AP.P.503/2009; LA.APP.506/2009; LA.APP.50712009; LA.APP.508/2009; 1_A.APP.509/2009:, LA.APP.5 10/2009: LA.APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP.5 I 2/2009: LA.APP.5 13/2009: LA.APP.567/2009: l.:A,AP1.572/2009; LA.AP1. 1 5/20] 0; LA.APP,45/201 0; LA.APP,48/20] 0; T.A.APP.404/201 0; LA.APP.13/201 I: LA,APP.l 13812008: LA.APP.1 176/2008: I A.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 (Relatiiig to Notification No. F. 1 0(30)/96/L& B/LA/i 3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the 1.and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village iTharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) 1?eserved on: ]Jeceinbei' 08, 2011 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BLJWASAN). / J)EVLNDJIR KUMAR Through l.Ai'pp. No 119/2003 & connected Appeals of 'Jillage Bharuial .A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l%ijwasari LA.App No.11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu Appellant [omar, Mr.Virendra Singh Page 3 0(2.9 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr. B. K. Routray. Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UO1 & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav. and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/L.AC Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K, Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by 1_TOT, Mr.Vire.ndra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 7], & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr. B ankey Bihar Sharii. a, Mr. Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorn.er 1K. Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP .51/2010 LA.APP. 5 2/20 10 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 Li-\.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70112010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LAAPP. 242/2010 LA:APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 28112010 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.APF. 294/2010 LA.APP.. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345112010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP: 348/2010 LA.APJ. 349/2010 i.A.A.PP,. 35012010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.AP?: 352/2010 lA.APP. 353/2010 354/2010 LA.APP. 35612.01.0 LA.APP. 357/2010 L.A APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. W 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 . I.A.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010

1.A.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/201.0 . LAj-PP, 4071/2010 L,A.APP. 408/201 0 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP, 438/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP•, 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 A.A.PP.725/2010 LA.APP. 726,!2010 LA.APP, 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732I2910

1.A.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 L.A.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 2861/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.A1P. 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. I 0(30)96-L& B/LA/i 3417. dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND lAApp. No 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthl l.A,App. No. 298/2010 & connected Appeals of ViHage Bijwasais i\.App. No. I//0]0 & connect.pd Appeals of Village Pochanpur Papt 4 of 29 .

'V (GRID-C) Rvervec/on:Decembei../8jj Prono2ncedonJanua/y(9JJ]2 LA.APP. 11 1/20 10 (VILLAGE POCHANP1[JR) SE1JAJ RAM AND OR.S. Appellants Through: MLB.D, Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solankj 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;S.B..Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.R.ajesh Yadav, Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INI)IA & ANR . Respondents Through: 111\4r.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr,Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navljri Swain., Advocates for LOi/LAC Mr.Baikev Biharj Sharma, Mr,Kunal ShariTla and Mr:Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DD.A. I, LA.AJP. 111/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.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 120/201 1 IA.APP. 76/201 I LA.APP .523/201 1 LA.APP. 536/2011 LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.APP. 260/20 1.0 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 317/2010 LAAPP. 396/2010 LA.APP. 43212010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 639/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.AP1. 768/2010 LA.APP. 1052/201 0 LA.APP. 116/2011 LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.A1P. 485/2011 LA.APP. 525/201 1 LA.APP. 554/20 1 1 J.A.APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 209/201 0 LA.APP. 249/2010 LA.APP. 261/2010 LA.i-\.PP. 305/2010 LA.APP, 392/2010 LA,APP. :397/2010 LA,APP 433/2010 LA.APP. 577/2010 LA.APP. 640/2010 LA.APP. 741/2010 LA.APP. 784/2010 LA•.A.PP. 61/2011 LA APP. 117/2011 LA.AIP. 129/2011 I..A.APP. 52 11201 1 LA..Aip.526/201j LA.APP. 591/2011 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP. 215/201 0 LA APP. 250/2010 LA.APP. 270/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 LA.APP. 393i201 0 LA.APP. 412/2010 LA.AJP. 434/2010 LA.APP. 635.'2010 LA.APP. 657/2010 LA.APP. 758/2010 !.,A.APP. 918/2010 LA;App. 64/2011 LA.APP. 119/2011 l.A APP. 429/2011 LA.APP. 522/2011 LA.APP. 535,'201 1 .t\.App. No. 1.195/2003 & connected Appeals of VlPlage Bharthal A,Apu. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L\.App No 1.11/2010 & conrmcterj AppeaR of Villa30 Pochanpur.

Ed . (Relating to Notification No. F.] 0(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued Linder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09. 12.2002, Village Pochanpur, I)eihi) CORAM: .HON3LE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER IYO

06.01.2012 Since the grounds on which enhanceñent 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 Nearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NO/I//Cation No.1.103096j& B/LA113417 dated 13.12. 2000, relating to geographically contiguous Vi ilages Bharthal, Bij wasan and Pochanpur are being disposed Of by this common order. Acquisition process for planned development of .Dwarka Phcis JJ in 1)ellii, commenced with the issuance of Noti/icaijon of 13 December, 2000 under Section 4 of the 1.and Acquisition Act. 1894, • pertaining to vast tract of agricifitural land in one conipact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Etates including villages in questi on, i.e., E3harthal, Bijwasan and Poc.hanpur. Agricultura.i land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three • villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, • i.e., Award No.26/20022003; Award No.28/2002-2003•aid Award No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation ) Z.13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field with top soil) and Z1232 lacs per acre for Block '13' (without top soil). . Dissatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acquired LA,App. No. 1195/2093 & onnected AppeIs of ViIIge 13harthal. t./;.App. No. 29d/2010 & connected Appejls of ViHage Bijwasan IJ\.f\pp. No. 1 1./2U3o & connected AppeIs of VilNige Pochnpitr • • agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Ac1, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation(ij 15.00 lacs per acre f6r the appci]nts' acquired land in Block 'A' and @1 Z13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthai and Bijwasan; whereas, rcIrences 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 prcedcnts in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Kariwtalta Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors,, (2011)2 SCC 246; AnjanjMolu Dessni vs. State of Goa andAnr,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh Rum and Ors vs. State o[Hurpomu tmdAnr, (2.010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthaia (Dead) throng/i LRs. Vs. Special Tehsiidar (LandAcquisition) & Ors, (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ran'ir Sing/i and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; chindhn Fakiruii Putil

(I)) through .LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jtdguon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jul Lal vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Ranw A'und (since deceased) througi LRs vs. (Jnfr,i of India & 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); (idiw Dass vs. State of Jarpana & Ors., • 2010(9) SCA1.E 41; Chakas vs. S/ate of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCA1J 362; Avinash Dhavd/i IVai/c vs. State of Maiuu'ashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 17 1; Atma Sing/i (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P. No. 4143/200 thled as Sail, indu ihorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Raflq Saheb, (2011) • 7 SCC 71 4; Tbakarsihhai Dev/ibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, • IAApp. No. .lv?5/?008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhathai :.A,App. No. 29412010 & connected Appeals of Viflage Bij\as5n A.APp. No 1 j 1,'201.0 & connected Appoals of Village Pochanpur • • • • Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Haiyana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175;Risal Singh & Ors. Vs'. Union a/indict & An,',, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 scc 769; General Manager, Oil and PVatural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhaj Jivanbhctj Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Vaillyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsiidw' (La,ui Acquisition) and An,'., AiR 2011 sc 2937; .Kiran Tandon mg. Aliahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mcthesh Dattatray Tlurthkar vs. State of Maharash/ra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; a Rapil Mehra (Mcjor General) & O,i -s. Vs. Union of indict &. An,", 176(2011) DLI 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Siugh vs. Delhi Development Authority & .Anr,, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Pralas/i ('dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satjal & (h's vs. Union of India, (1997) ii SCC 423; LA, APP. No.656/008 titled as Sushi! Kuma,' vs. Union of indict, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union (j india, decided on 07.06.2011; and 8/tule Rain vs. Union ofindict, 20l()

(170) DLT 371. on the strength of the aforesaid dcQisions, at the very outset, it rS was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned arguing counsel for the appellants 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 future alone. It was pointed out by M.r.R.S.,Tc.naj, cou.sel for appellants that DeJhi-Rewa.rioc11pur broad gage raivay line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e, on the eastern side of the railway II I -je is the 101 Airport, New i)clhi LA.App. No. 1195/2003 & connected Appeds of ViUge 13hai Lha (A App. No.791/2010 & connected AppeIs of ViHage E3ijwasn A./\pp. No. 11:1/2010 & connected Appeak of Villoge Pochanpur Page a of 2:9 n and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards I)warka Sub-City Part-I and Part-Il again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGE Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan 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 of IG1 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 Bharthai 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 Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of P.h.sc-1I,, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks szras/map to highlight that the boundary of' Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village iDhool Siras are ContIguous. It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has fiuiled to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired and in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notihcation of 1610 October, 2000 vie which land use of the three villages in question was changed from. agricu I Itural to residenti ai/ Comm ercial/jndusrjai etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to he rural in view of the otti.catjon of 24" October, 1 994. It was argued with much vehniencc by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel fr the appellants that the aftresaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Refercnce Court by relying upon P. Runa - ;\ App. No. a 951/ ,"008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhrth1 A App.No, 294/2010 & connected Ai !s of Village Bijwasan L/'..App. No, 3.11/2010 & connected AppeaR of Village Pochanpur . ReIdi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderahad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Hwyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must he adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot he limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisitioi, if the authorities do not put the land tO any use, it would not mean that there is no building potcntia.1iti.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sjiarma 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 Coup, 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 Anjthil Mo/u .Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr,, (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to Z57 l,acs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates tor determining the • market vlue of the acquired land is patently erroneous. ii. Assessment of market value of the acquired 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 basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the Governmój-jt for ahlotthent of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001 Keeping in View the location, situation and POtCfltaiity of the acquired land, deirmjnatjon of its market value is LAApp. No, J 1.95/2008 & collnectpd Appeas of Village Bharthal LA,App. No. 294/201.0 & connected AppeaR of VUlage Bijwasan

LA.App N, 1:11/2010 & connected Appeffis of Village Pocharipur Page 10 or 29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and m Village Saalkha 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-l)etermjned Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant liñpulse 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.202002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flawed' in the course cf the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Refèri-ed to in cross-exan'jjJ'/,((tion of' appellant dated

7.7.2007) I?) Does not accountjr the Jici' that the Public IV(;)tice dated 18.9.1987 adversely q7cied the rates of land in the area far more than 15 years be/bre the Noiication under Section 5 offhe L and Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. c, Valuing the land on the basis of' the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued hp the Government of Nat jonal 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 1-Ion 'hieSupreine Court in Sangunthala versus Tahslldar, 2010(3) SCC 661. d Ignores the evidenc and other flictors which as per established law has i be consiiered h(--are ascertaining the t,aiue of the land tinder acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced befare the trial Covrt'whereas as per the law established by the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the recent Case of' Chinda Fcmkira P(j.1ij versus Special Land Acqutsition Officer, Civil Apeal ]Vo.5475 of 2007. The lion 'h/c Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deed showing higher rate should not he disregarded in A.App. No 119512008 & conn&!.ed AppeaR of Village Bhrthal :.A.App No. 794/2910 & connected AppeaR 01 Vi lage Bijwasam LA.f\pp. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochnour' Papa 11 o129 7V case the average sale price 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 dfferent types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land, 1?elied 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 Z13,36i 000 in Block 13 in violation of the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court including in S'ubh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) • SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment re/used to return an actual /inding on the issue No. I firained on 27.2.2007, Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide 1Votification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhooi Siras and l3harthai was changed and these area,s, ceasd to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notiicat!ons of Government for land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, conmercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention thai the appellant lead evidence in repect o/lhe 74" amendment of the Constitution of India, w cf 1.6. 1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municioai Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municzpal area and the inuniciai Counsellor was elected from there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. Ii.) Refused to apply tne law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 347, Ranvir .Singh and ilur vs. Union of india and refused to consider the fc.t that the developinent in the area has a direc( effect on the price that a willing' pui chaser would pav/'r the sut7je'cr land.

i) ignored the frct that Repoodent No.. 2 had a/so LA.App. No. 1195,2008 & connected Appeak of Vitage Oharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page .12 of Z9 p 3O auctioned similarly situated icind as commercial blocks at the rate of about Z2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. j 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 qf change of • 0 the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Dwarka Phase H. it is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and B ha rt ha! was changed and these areas ceased to he agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. 7) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 a/though they clear/v establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 ii was held that the purpose for • which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fad whether the land has got building votentiality to he used far building purposes in immediate or in 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 houe sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adfoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near fiture. In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual deta.il.s have been provided 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 appellants, it was urged by Mr.Ana.nd Yadav, Advocate that the effect of LAApp. No. 1195/2008 & cónrec(ed Appeals of Village Bharthal l.AAop. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwassn A/pp. & 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, Stat • of Maharashira, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major Genrai) (& • Ors. Vs. Uhwn of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 arid that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands 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 value of the acquired lands. ThLIS, enhancement of compensation . reflecting just; fair and adequate 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 Lul(l 4cquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale i)eed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence or determination of the market value unless and unfil 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 considere:l 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 i's. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpai & Ors i's. Unüin of india, (1997) Ii SCC 423; La! (hand i's. Union of India and Anr.,,

(2009)15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kunwi vi Union of india, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increase in price, in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Vilage Bharthal tA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals ofVillageBiiwasan 5 :APP. No. 11.1 1001.0 & connected Appeals of Vil!age Pochar'ipur I and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a highei 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& DO rates/Pre-I)etermjned Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of ApexCourt in La! Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra). 16, So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross objectois that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on Js1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum,' market value of the aciuircd lands has been erroneously dcternijned by the Reference Coup, as in Sushi! Kurnar (supra) appreciation lO% per annum has been granted. 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 Couii while taking iilt'o consideration the appreciation ), 1 2% per annum and the same deserves to he brought in line while granting appreciation Ec 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross objections to the aforesaid extent. l 7. AfteiT considering the rival subnissioi1s advanced by both the sides and Upon close perusal of the impued judgnien, the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market'yahje of the comparable land is the price paid by willing puràhaser to a willing L.A App. No. 1.195/:008 & 00000ctíd Appeals of Village Bharth31 LA /\pp. No, 29/2010 & connected Appeals of Village jwasan .A.App No. 13 L/201c, & coflflC(:ted Appak of Village Pochanpur Page is of;t'j (I 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 thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udiw Dass vs0 Stae of Haryana & Ors0, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- ' (i,) 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 its explosive popuiaton; the suitability of the acquired land/or putting up the buildings, be they i"esidenjial, commercial or • industrial, as the case may be; possibility of obtaining water and electric supply fhr occupants of buldtngs to be put up on that land; absence of stat utorv impediments or the like for using the acquired land fir building purpose; existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential exiens !ons in the vicinity or close proxzmLty of the acquired iancl benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land, and (vii,) lands around the acquired Icind or the accjuired land itself being in demand fn' building purposes. to specij5' afew.

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to. hear in mind the purpose Rr A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Rharthal IA.App. No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasn bS.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur • T. which the lands were sought to he acquired but also the subsequent • events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determinaion of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court • in Atma Singh (supra) that the. exempJars of small pieces of land relied • upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. 1 9. Aorcsaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Sitheb, (2011) 7 5CC

¶714The 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. • 20. it is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of provin'g 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.

¶21. Apex Court in Vallicthnna/ (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 deduction of 40% towards developmeit charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in An.jani Mo/u Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are, as under:- • l.P.'App. No,195/ 2 008 & cbririectrid Appeals of Vill,ge Bharths l./\App. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Vifage E3ijwsn LA.App. No. ii 1/010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 17 of 2.9 --.,--.--•-.--•,.-., .... • .--,- . . ,1.• 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 bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values dislosed in respect of two sales are markedly dfftrent, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other prlce depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot he resorted to..

22.It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired !and.s made by the Apex Court in. Chindha Fakiru Path (Supra),. \j\Tljch are as foIows:- ft is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the honafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the kinds situated in the neighborhood of the acquired iatids possessing Isinillar value or utilit) taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value.

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as • reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on feur ftictors - situation of the (and., nature of development in surrounding area, avai/abiliti.' qf icind fer development in the area, and the demana' for (avid in the area. in rural areas unless there is any prospectof development in the vicmt, increase in prices would he s/ow, steady and g/adual, wthout any suc/den spurts oi-jumps. .A.Ipp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Vlilge Bharthal LA.App No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViUage Bijwasm .A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocharpur On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas, in som pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand fr 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 th'eie was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of' 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a sign ijicant ciifjerence in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural £reas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to i5%'per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be on/v around ha/f of it that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specIc evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for app/v ing a higher rate of increase, or any specfIc evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the i'node of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved, market value of nearby lands in prevzous years as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition/ , where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquis1tons of comparable lands in the neighboirhood..he aid method is reasonably safe where the i"e-on-saie transactions/acquisitions precedes the sub'ect acquisitiOn by only a few yeOis, that is ipto !ur to five years Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if iX i'eiates to a neigithourinç' land. What may be a rç!icth/e standard if the gap is On!).' a feiv years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard i'vhere the gap is larger. For example. /ir determining the market value of' a land accyuii'ed. in 1992, adopting the annual increase method ivith reference to a sale or l...App. No. 1ii2uQg & conrected Appeals of ViHage Bh'arthei . .A.Apo. NO. 794001O & Connected Appeals 01 VdI5,C! Biiwasan LA.Ape No ......1/2010 & connected Appeats of Village Pocranper . . ' ['ego 19 of 29 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate'of annual Increase may itsef z.ndergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard 0/increase. This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Hwyana State Industrial Developineit corporation (I1-ISIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods What was said by the Apex Court in HSII)C (Supra) is as under:-. When different categories of tone/s ('or lands with c4/ferent situational advantages) are acquired/or the some purpose, say /'or orming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that detern'iination of their value with re/C rence to previous status or situation should be avoided and a un/orrn rate of'coinpensation should he awarded for all lands acquired under the same notflcation. lindisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and aound acquired Jand of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplal' strongly relied upon by the appellants is of' Vii1ae Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale '0 Deeds vide which religious lflStltutjon, i.e., Rae/ha Swami Satsarig, fleas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs i:r acre. Whether aforesaid Sale I)eeds (Ex .PW 1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) which are basically between one set of co wuers and Radha Swami Sthsatzg, fleas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 I3ighas and 6 Biwas situated in Village Pocharipur reect the correct market value of the land in the village.s in question is the moot question which is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemi3iars, i.e.. Sale Deeds .AApp. No. 1195/2003 & conhiected 4ppeals of Village Oharthal J\.App. No. 254/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L.A.App. No.11 112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochapur ' (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from Z 52 lacs to T62 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 • que&ion, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated s • disclosing 1epresentative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Villag • Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has not beeji brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has no been got examined by the appellants. I-lad the purchaser/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., Radha Swami Saisaig, J3eas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale I)eed e.xc.uted on 25111 March, 2000 was also subject matter in l.A. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Sing/i vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/201() titled as Raj Sing/i vs. Union of India, decidd on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale eernplar of Village M.amurpur was discarded while holding 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 acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knovledge of pievailing I.A.App. NC). 1195/2008 &, connected tCppeak of ViHage Oharthal LA.App, No. 294,12010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. ii 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

¶0market 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 (Lx.PW]/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Cout. SC) •far as the sale exemplar of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-l/i 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,172.41 per acre.relting• to Sale I)eed of 27th• January, 2000, it needs to he noted that because this sal.e exemplar (1-i.x.PW-l/l i) was situated on the National 1-Iighway -8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW1 1/l 1) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon iicluding tuhewell, boring, fitting, fixfurc, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, -it had fetched such a high price. in view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot he treated as a representative ricc for the acquired lands in question. -

1.cfl with no sale exemplas disclosing realistic price of similarly sitiatcdJands 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 Pre-I)etcrrnined Rates for the alternate plots by the DI).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 rcpoited as R Ram Reddp and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Aut/iorit,' Hyderahad and Ors,, 199.5(2) SCC 305 are as under:-

¶12however, in either of the said cases whether it be the dterminaiion of the market value oft/i.e acquired land with - building potentiality with re jerence to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well dve7oj,ed layoit in the neighborhood .A.App. No 1.10/2008 & connected.Appeals of Village Uharthal A,App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village llilwssan I A.App. No. 11,1/201.0 & tonnected Appeals of Village Pochanpur 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 Jr the Court to find out what will be the price ftched or to be ../etched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched i/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 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 ielevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its valie 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 115th 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 potentiality arises only when there is no cvi dei'ice of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there 'ias no immediate demana at such, fr building plots even if farmed in the acquired land.

¶31In view of the difficulties inadoption of rate of land charged by the 1)I)A after acquiring the agricul.ti.irai lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! clumd. (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/Pie-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Filowing the dictum of La! (hand (Supra), a coordinate Bench ol.' this Court in Jài Si;gh (Supra) and Sushi! Kunu -ir (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of LA.App. No.1 1.95/2QQ9 & connected Appeals of Village 13haihl LA.App. No. 294120:10 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.f\pp. No. 111/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ti-ic undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the I)DA rates for allotment of developed land or the I)I)A's Prc-I)etermined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the markdt value of the acquired agricultural lands in question. Now 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 acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development Of

i)warka Phase-i: It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel •for the respond ent/cros s-obj ector that even if the • escalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the - Notification for development of I)warka Phase-I and the instant - Notification for development of•I)warka Phase-Il, still the price fixed by the l.and Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court si.s unjustified. Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supr-a), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment (f 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 unsafb 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-Il is of sixteen years and therefore, it would he unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appfopriate .A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Vifage Oharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village [lijwasan LAApp, No. 111/2919 & connected Appeals of VUlage Pochanpor . - 11~ ~ 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 annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 1 0% increase on account of higher potcnta1ity of the acqvired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushi! Kunwr (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court @ 12°, per annum cannot be i -educed 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 p1-ice of the agricultural, land in i)eihi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12 0No per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation pt' the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w.c.f. April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not. 36, Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Nol:ificatio,n 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 24fh October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. it is true that vide aforesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed but that by itsel f is not sufficient to A.App. No. I 195/2008 & c000ectc'd Appeals of ViSage Bhartho IJ\.AppNo. 204/2010 & curnected Appeals of ViHage Bijwasan LA.App. No, 111,2039 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur 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 developi-ne.nt in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swanii Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

¶37Rallier, 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 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 o 11 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 institution and another sale instance of Village Samalltha (Ex.PW-1/1 I) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Saisang ]3eas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of • Village Sarnailia (Ex.PW-l/1 1) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Sama}.kha (Lx. PWl /11) cannot be treatd to be sufficient • ground to grant higher compensation while relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afbrc-referrecl dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Deve/opine,t (orporath,i (IiSJD°c Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Govennient for the agribultural land in Delhi, which gei.ierally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what \.pp. No. i]95/20g3 & conncct(d Appek of ViHaige Bhrthi i.A..\pp. No. 294/20j0 & c0000ctod AppiaI of Village Bijwasan LJ\\pp. No . 1i1/200 & connectr.'d Appeals of Village PochaflpL,i would he expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's mlnimurn agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jul Sing/i (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kurnar (Supra) and 11 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 thc 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 Bhaihal and Village B.ijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out frora the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquird lands being in close vicinity of the JUl Airport, Indian. Oil and • BharaL Petroleum I)epots and of Railway line passing through Village .Bharthal and there being a 100 meteis vide road staiti.ng from N11-8 from Shiv .Murti 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 • Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of atoresaid locational advantaes the acquired lands in question, ceiainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant iO4 increase ove and above nirket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Referetice Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acqu.iied lands is the !.A.App. No.1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhairthal l.J\.App. No. 294/2010 &: connected Appeals of Village Bijwasn I A.App. No; 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 27 01 29 ~k ~ settled legal position aptly highlighted by the .Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan i's. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, iii these words:- "W'7ien once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up huiidins in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account th e increase in price attributable to such building potentiality.

¶39Considering the fat that it woUld be very difficult to provide a definite val Lie qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing iir compensation, it is broad pi-ohabilitics of the instan.t cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly app1 ing the Government's minij -n urn rices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special 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 Biiwasan. Jiowever, while relying upon the decision in Siishil Kuinar (Supra), .1 am inclined to grant 10% increae over and above the market. value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Curt in these matters on account of the aforesaid ] ocati dnai advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are prtly allowed to the extent of awarding 1 0% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village I31 jwasan While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan the appeals of pp No. 11.95 1/2003 & connected Appeis of Village Bh a rth al

.App. N o. 294,2010 & COflflect(d AppeIs of Village BjWaW1 .A.App, No......i/2OQ & connected Appo,ds of ViHge Pochenpur Fage 28 of ?9 •1 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 villages in question is determined Cy)16,50,000/- per bigh4 for the i---,-' Catcgoiy 'A' land and14,69,600t erbJgha for the Category '13' lands in question. ,-1\ -' On the aforesaid enhancenent in the compensation awarded,, slanitory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in. Sunder . vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted. except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, fr \vhich period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall he paid, fhese appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. The above captioned appeals and öross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, depoited b' either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. I)ecree sheets he accordingly .i'epared. January 06, 201.2 p k b (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE 4) .A.App. No. 2395/2008 & connected Appeis of ViIIge Bhairthal I A.App. No. 294/2010 & codnected AppeIs of ViHage Bijwesan A.App, No. 1.11/7.030 & connected Appeek of Village Pochanpur S 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.S,Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvindei Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S..Negi 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 INI)1A & ANR. .. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddr, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pa.thak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.KKauiimdi Kiran, Advocates for . LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Vernia,Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma; Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth,/\..uvocates for DDA. CORAM: . . HON'B.LE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 CM. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correcti.o. This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6th January., 2012, Counsel appearingfor 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 6111 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per higha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is hot disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appe1lants Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LAAppNo 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carded Out forthwith. in view Of the aforesaid., this application stands disposed of. JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb c -- . SIJNIL GAUR) JUDGE JA.App.No. 1195/2 008 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on. November 4, 2011 Pronounced on. January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 1059/2008 NANU RAM & 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.Añita 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 Mehiawat, 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 Kurnar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: IION'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR