Hardeep & Anr v. UOI & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma v^. Union of India & A nr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IL GAUR) JUDGE % ^7-THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November IS. 20JI ELonoum^doniJ^^ (GRID-A) LA.APP.l195/2008(VILLAGErBHARTHAL) RANBJRSHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash,Ms.Smila Maan,Mr.R.SA-'erma,Mr.JitinTewathia,Advocates Mr.AnandYadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate ^ Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate L Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh ^adav, Mr.DeepakKhosla, Mr.SamitIChosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat. Advocates Mr.liS.Rautela,Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate, Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) versus UMIONOF INDIA&ANR. ' Respondents 1hrough: Mr.SanjayPoddar,.SeniorAd\'ocatewith Mr.Sanjay Patnak,Mr.Mohitrao..tddha\':ind M.s.Nav'liaSwain, Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocatesfor LAC/IJOI Mr.AjayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni. Mr.lVlukesh Kumar,Mr S,.K.Sethi,Mr.Pav/anMathur, Mr.Kuna] Sharma, Advocate for DDA i.A.APP.41.=:/2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Ohjections).LA.APP.452/2008' ^^'^^^^'''•688/2008& CA4.No.5990/20J0'(Cross-ObjediMs); lA.AH .()•. 7/2008 & CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i/2008& CM.No.5]0/2009 (Cross-Omection;;); APP.768,''2008; LA.APP.770/2008; I.A.A;.-'p.Wo. l.iy,V.'^008&connccVedAppRalsofVillaBi;Bharlhal iA.Add. No. /94/?.(n06 conneci.edAppcvjlsofVillat>(:Biiwasjri IA.App. .1.1:i,/?010&connncuidAppealsofViilaBt.l-ochanpiir^ •LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & - , CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objectiks); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2p08 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2b08; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objectioiis); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.B13/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.S 18/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008-& CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.gOl/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objecti.bns); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM'INo.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2;008; LA..APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.4E£ia3/2IiQ£;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.NQa2344)/am (Cross-Objections(fXA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.Al^.1046/2008 l,,A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008 LA.APP.1051/2008& CM.No.17^62/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008 LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No. 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008;LA.APP.1074/2008 & ' CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections); lA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & 'CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.244.8/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008; A'.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Gross-Objections);LA:APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No:3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP. 1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009'(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l115/2008; LA.APP.il16/2008; LA.APP.l121/2008; [.A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008'& CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l13572008 & CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP.l 156/2008; LA.APP.1157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774.a009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/200.8; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.8()2/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008 LA.APP.l 170/2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA.APP.l 173/2008 LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.l 181/2008 LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l18V2008& CM.No.6.933/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.l18^/2008; LA.APP.l186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connficted Appeals of VillageBharthal l.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppeaLsofVillageBIjwasan' • ' • ^ l.A.App.No. 1.1.1/2010& connGcteciAppealsof VillagePochanour' ' Page2.of29. j % a>\ (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008 LA.APP.l 193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP.l 197/2008 LA.APP.1198/2O08& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.l 241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008 LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281^2008;LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA,APP.95/2009 & ^ CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; 1-.A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP.l 97/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP. 572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 13 7/2009 LA.APP. 143/2009 LA.APP. 187/2009 LA.APP. 198/2009 LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.224,/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP,437/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP. 503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP,45/2010; .A.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP. 13 9/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 • LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/200 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.223/2009 CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 L A.APP.3 05/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 .LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.l 176/2008 LA.APP.il77/2008; LA.APP,1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417'dated 13'.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08. 20! I Pronounced on: Jamiarv 06. 20]2 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-piJWASAN). DIWENDERKUMAR Appellant Through: ;.Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh I.A,App. Mo .11.95/;'.008& connecled Appealsof Village Rharlhal i.A,App. No, 7,94/2010& connnctodAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App No, 1,11/2010& connectodAppealsofVillage Pocbanpu,'' Advocates iMr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Routand ;Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appellant ' (inR-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75,76) versus UOl & ANR Respondents rhrough: ^Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith •; Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadiiav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates 'forUOI/LAC ;Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and !Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals • filed by UOL ,Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,71 •& 72 in appealfiled by UOI LMr.BankeyBihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal ^Sharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth,Advocates forDDA. LA.APP. U/2p]0 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP.242/2010 LA.APP.246/2010 LA.APP.282/2010. LA.APP.283/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP.286/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP.75/2010& C.M.No.964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP.359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.y\PP. 407/2010 LA.APP, 408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA,APP. 722,/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732./2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & " •oss-objecticins) a^elatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/Ly\/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section-4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijAvasan,Delhi) AND IA.App, No. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 29'?/?.010&connectcdAppealsofVillageBIjwasan '.A.App, IMo. llj/.2010& connectedAppealsofVillajjePochanpur . PaBe 4 of 29 % V (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 20! I Pronounced on: Jamiarv 06. 2012 J.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHA.TRAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants ;Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solankiand •Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 ,to49, 59, 63 to71) iMr.S.B.Kumar, Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64,65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant inR-22) , versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocatewith Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain.Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA: . 111/2010 . 160/2010 .228/2010 .254/2010 . 292/2010 . 307/201,0 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.A.PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2'0I0 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 • 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011-591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 156/2010 ,215/2010 .250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 i.A.App, No. 11.95/2.008&connoclGdAppealsofVillageBharthal lV\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoctianpur. (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-I.& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012

¶1Since the groundson which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in fhese' bunch of appeals are identical, thereiorewith the consentof learned counsel ibr the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotiflcaiionNo.F.10(30)96-L&!B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agriculturarland in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. i

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award' No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@^^13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @^12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarket value oftheir acquired LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppeals.ofVillaBeBharthal. LA.App. No. 291/2010&conriRcledAppealsofVillageBijwasan 17\.App.No. ni/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur , " . r . . ' agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide' impugned judgment had enhanced comptosation @ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

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

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana andAnr,,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Fs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) &. Ors., (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon,

201.1(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs Union ofIndia & Am\, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana & Ors., , 201:0(9) SeALE 41; Chakas'ws. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SeALl'i 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atnia Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCe 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003' titled as Smt. Indii Khorand V5. Grant Sabha .cS Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, l.A,/\pp. No. .115.')/^008fi connoctRd Appeals of Village.Bharthai' I.A,App. Mo. ?.94/?.010&• connectnd Appeals of VlllaBe Bijwasan !A,App. No 1] 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ' • . ' ' • Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175; RisalSingh& Ors, Vs, UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);La! Chandvs. Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd ra. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr.,,AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar V5. State',of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) &,Ors. Vs, Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20]1) DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Am\, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs ra. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627' Satpal & Ors vs. Union-of'India,(1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on.

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

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguingcounsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on-theeasternside ofthe railwaylineis the IGI Airport,New Delhi U\.App.No. 1195/2008&conneclcdAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. No. 291/2010&connoctedAppealsofVillageUijwasan lA.App. I\io. 111/2010(4 cnnnecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8ifrom Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side-where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Fann Houses are located on the land ofVillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Aiiport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsarid thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the westernside of VillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslms:^to highlightthat the boundary ^ of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

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

¶9It was argued with muchivehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama ' • _ IA.App. No. il9r)/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal i !A.App.,l\lo,294/2010& connectcdAppealsofVillageBijwasan . '• LA.App. No. l.U/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillaRSPochanpur Pago9of 29 Redd!&'Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex eourt in its later decisionin Vdho Pass vs. StaleofHaryana <S Ors., 2010(9)SCALE . 41 holding that the potential|of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingin view the deveiopmentin the area overaperiodoftime and the same cannot be limited to a neai-future alone and if after the acquisition,iftlie authoritiesdo not put tlie land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiahtv.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma.learnedcounsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight lhat the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because' there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued . bocauscof any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition aid down by the Apex Court iii AnjuniMotu Dessaiiw. StateofGoa "ndAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplarsoughtto be . taken as representingthe marketprice ofthe land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable•sale instances, therefore, .eliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupontheminimumratesAircleratesfor determiningthe I • marketvalueofthe acquiredlandjspatentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentofmarketvaltp of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe I& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre- ' determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate ^ plots the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land,determinationof its market value is I-A.App No. nj,2010&conmicledAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pape 10 of 29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur.and VillageSamallcliaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka jPhase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DcterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

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

23.J0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) I ^oes not accountfor 'the faci that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffected'therates,ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land.AcqiiisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9,2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordance with the la.w laid d.own by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. ' d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,befireascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereas as per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.'5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court,has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshoyvinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin l7\,A|.)p.No, .ll9!i/2008&connGcVedAppnalsofVillage Uharthal • I.A.App. No. ?94/2010&conneclndAppealsofVillageDIjwasan t-A.App.No. 1.11/2010&connectedAppealof VillagePochanpur ^ f case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai v^. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by'-.averagingof different types of sales transactions should he considered, while adjudicating upon compensationupon a. certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide]the mosket value of the subject land while ignoring the]material which indicate that the marketvalue of the land is much higherthan 15 lacper acre-in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down 'hy the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v.y. State of Haiyana 2010(1) SCC 444-As a consequence, the; impugnedjudgment •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. '• g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationof the MunicipalCorporationof Delhi, the land, use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries of.Delhi State. Jhe masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"" amendinenf of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area yvhere the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor _ was electedfrom, there.. No Panchayat elections were held in the a.rea. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr Union ofIndia and refusedto considerIhe fact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpayfor thC:subject land. • 0 Ignored the fact that \Respondent No. ,2 had also I.A.App,No. 1195/2008& connncledAppealsofVillage Bharthal ' LA.App. No. 29'I/?.010&connHcledAppealsofVillageBIjwa.san • W.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur f auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the ' pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accpuntthe possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of l>yvarka Phase 11 It is reiterated that the land use of Village DhoolSiras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthe said land. In Sangunlhalav. Tahsildar

(2010) 3see 661 itwas heldthai thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value oj the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) 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 acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportionoj the land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the factual details have been provided with a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with tJie co-appellantsof the , otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,itwas urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof LA.App. Mo. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A.App.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofyillageBljwasan IV\.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Rape 13 of29 urbanizationoftiie lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarra. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre- , Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Ihtis, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence lor determinationof the market value unless and until the same is pioperly connectedwith the land in question and clement of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature, situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value ofthe acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the j ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62): DRJ 227, SatpaiA Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand. vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Smhil Kumar ra. • Union of India, decidedon 26.09.2011,it'was urged that sharp increase ' in piice in a shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for siich sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal • .l A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App.No. 11.1./2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' LA.App, . l..'\./\pp, l-A.App. and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin the market^Youldpay such ahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Symmi Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special cojnsideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-oh^ectorlthat adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DetcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of I Apex Court in Lai Chand (jsupra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBench ofthis Courtin Sushif'-Kumar(supra)andRa] Singh (supra). I . ,

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1'' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the jacquired lands has been erroneously determined by the ReferenceICourt, as in Sushil Kumar (supra), appreciation@ 10% per annuid has been granted.Thus, it is submitted, thatthereis no scopefor forther!enhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcqpsitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deseives to be modified deletiiig the enhancementby the ReferenceCourt:whiletakingiiitpconsiderationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deservps to'be broughtin line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent; '

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the. sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon i recordand the decisionscited,wl-^atemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is the.pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling No. 1195/2008&connnctedAppealsofVillageBharthal No. 294/2010&connectGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan No. i:.l/2010&connected-AppealsofVillagePochanpur 3^ seller and the best evidence is; the comparable sale instances. While dealingwith the questionofpotentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the.market value thereof, stands leiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass ra. State of Hmyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCAl^E 41 in these words:-

(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village]which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any other kind of importanceor because of its explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, convnercial or industrial,as the case may be;

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput upon that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredland,for buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of higlmays, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

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

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶18Ihe potentialityofland for the puipose.ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large^number of factors. For the said puipose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharlhal LA.App. No. 7.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ^ , W.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppnaLsof VillagePochanpur Pggg ^5 s? which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscould not be a ground to discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepiecesof land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference eithei in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similaily situated having similar advantage availableto them even as icgards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well establishedproposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving-inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the - y Apex Court in Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage,

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammdl(Supra),while takingnote ofihe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,ihospitals,etc., had held that deduction I of 40% towards development dharges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court'inAnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- L'N.App. No.1185/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharlhal lA.App. No. 294/2010& connsctcdAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 1U/20I0& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pappl7of29 <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 be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can' be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile tO;takenote of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as V '' . follows:- "Jt is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactionsproximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and. the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil ami Natural Gas Corporation Ltd, V (Supra), are as under "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availabilityof land for developmentin the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any 'prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices' would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutanysuddenspurts orjumps. l-'\,(\pp.No. ].195/2008& connectedAppnalsofVillage Bharllial ' i.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connGcted.AppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. l]l/20iaa connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development isfaster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas') In somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high, demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a nominalrate of !%> or 2% per annum. There is [thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas ds about 10% to 1-5% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only aroundhalfof it, that is about5% lo 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceoj clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor applyinga. higher ra.te of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the ..actual .increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedM>oidddependupon the same. Normally, recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe •market va.lue by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value oj nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions:precedes the subject acqidsition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it.may be unsafe, even if it. relates to a neighbouring •land. What may be a reliablestandard if the gap is only a few years, may become-unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,jor determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adoptiiig the annual increase method with reference to a sale or I.A.App.No. 1195/2008gi connRctedAppealsofVillageBh'artha! ! ' lA.Apo. No, 291/2010& conncctBdAppealsofVillagQ Bijwasan ' LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectGdAppealsofVillagePochanp'ji-• Pagel9of29 acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin piices OT suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase. "

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation;for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesoflands (or landswith different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, ^^ say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus orsituationshouldbe avoided anda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25[Jndisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSyvamiSatsangBeas , had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price j which vaiied from ^"52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1710)M'hich , are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand RadhaSwainiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighas'and 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof . the landin the villagesin qucstion'isthe mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds 17\,App.No. .1,195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal • I.A.App.iMo.2S4/2010a. connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App.No. m/20]0& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ^ (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been biought out as the purchaser/vendeeofthese agriculturallaiid has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeofthe aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreed to pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swaini Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an I exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh rv. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village ,1 Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. ^7. In the instantmatters,though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing lAApp, No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePoclianpur Pae21of29 market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (.lix.PW-1/4 to lix.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-1/11) elied upon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantprice of ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11)was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because yide Sale Deed (Bx.PW-1/11)vendor had sold not only the land but the structurethereon includingtube well, boring,fittiijig,fixture, lane, by-lane,etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice ofsimilarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whetheradoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question. _j

¶30• Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P, RanrReddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-

¶12However, in either of the said cases whether it be the . determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialityM>ith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood I.A.App. No. .1,195/2008& conncctfidAppealsofVillageBharthal ' LA.App. No. 294/2010& connoctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan lA.App. No."11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • ' r

¶31or whetheritbe the determin.ationofthe marketvahieofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby sale6fbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then whai couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection.4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasputandincreaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard Asmall percentage •increase to be given shall not exceed 1/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvaluefor such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland, indicatingthat there was no immediate dem.a.nd, as such, for buildingplots'even ifformed in the acquired land. " hi view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringtiie agriculturallands,developingthe saine,and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand > (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freeholdglands. Following the dictum of La! Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench ofthis Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and SushU Kumar (Supra) has 'excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No,l.V«/2008&conncctcdAppealsofVillageBharthal ' !:A.App.No. 291/2010&connnctcdAppealsof VillageBljwasan L-A.App, No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur r the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for'alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallands in question. j2. Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method.would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, leairiedsenior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per amium is taken from the yeai 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant ^Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorIs morethan the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore,•the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. ••

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt piogiessiveincieasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the I acqun-edland'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka 1hase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it.would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.Apr. No. ]19i;/2008& conncctedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' LA.App. No. 294/2010&connccledAppealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. 2.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur cscaJationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% iper annum, which is unwaiTanted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired;land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushi/Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto IQ% per annum.In this viewof the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumpriceofthe agriculturalland in Dellii,by the ReferenceCourt IS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired. land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%o per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not. j

¶36, Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertammg to the-Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants:becausethe acquiredland had ceased to-be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24'" October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use o! the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto I.A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhal ' l.A,App.No. ;i94/?,010&. connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectfidAppealsof VillagePochanpur'' / r presume that the acquired If^ids had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands.;Theevidenceled is lacldngon the vital aspectofthere beingany developmentin and around Uie acquiredlands HI question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang.Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethattire sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein pricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change qf their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land mVillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-l/lI)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe saleexemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalklia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land witii the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-I/11) cannot^be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances.Therefore, in view of the aforc-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryam State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (US/DC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder tlieisameNotificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agi-iculturalland in - Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potemiahty.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what • 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 26 of 2.9 \J I would be cxpected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government's.minimumagriculturalprice has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands inJai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushilKumar(Supra)and I fmd no reason to take a differentview than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid,cases•of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38Ihis Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceComtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ot there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation ol the acquiredlands is similai"to sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButI fmd that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and :of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from Nli-8 from Shiv Murti sideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portion's, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity oi: the acquiredlands has somehow missed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aioresaidlocationaladvantages;the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. Whatpeisuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover arid abovemarket value oi the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building.potentialityin the acquired lands is the I.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' ^ lV\.App.No. 294/2010&cormecledAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No.-11.1/2010&connectedAppeal.-:ofVillagePochanpur Pago 27 of 29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238. in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the posMuyofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buddingsmthe immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a • buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market valueinkinginto accountthe increaseinpriceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideiingthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the faet that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is ^^ broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem Wtth equivalenceby uniformlyapplying the Government'sminimum pr.ces for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acqu,redlands as there arejno specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,iJe., appellatrts of Village Bhatthal and " VillageBijwasan.However,while relying upon the decision in SuMl Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby theReferenceCourtin these matters on account of, the aforesaid locational advantages ; providingahigherbuildittgpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question. , 40. Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding,0% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bharthaland Village B'jwasan.WhiletreatingtheappellantsofVillagePochattpurat parwith appellantsofVillageBhatthalatrd VillageBijwasan,the appealsof PP conrtocladAppeal.,ofVillagePochanpur v-. /_• 5^ the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Ihus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@^16,50,000/-perJ;)i^j^rthe Category 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per bigha for the Category'B' lands in question. ^ |

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the period\Yherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid, l hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with cjirection to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar General oi this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. | • January 06, 2012 pkb JUDGE j . I-c o'i 'f'' • •LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A.App, No. 294/20i0&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan .li\.App.No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ='= IN THE HIGH COURT OF: DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA . Appellant Through: ' Mr.B.S.Maan, Mi-.AmitMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar^ Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.,Negi;andMr.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 iii appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanld and i ' • Mr.S.K.Rout!, Advocates i versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, • ' Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharaia and Mr.Somer Seth. Advocates for DDA. s CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER . %

12.01'2012 ! C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). this is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin - Orderof 6^'^ Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice y,I• I LA.App.No.1195/2008 ^ ^ p^ggi 51^ ofthe application.Advancecopyof(his applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalen'orpointedout by the respondentin the decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the alotesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor tire appellants:Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto "perbigha'inparagraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1193/200g be read as 'per acre'. Necessary coijectionsbe cajTiedoutforthwith.• In viewoftheaforesaid,tliisapplicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY12, 2012 pkb tAApp.No.1195/2008 JUDG.E Page 2

/ •Iv % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1031/2008 HARDEEP & ANR Through: Reserved on: November . 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate". Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh YadaV,Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, 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/UQI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathui", Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR