Satinder v. UOI & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb JNIL GAUR) JUDGE /> Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. ;> % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Al^ NEW DELHI (GRJD-A) Reserved on: November 18, 201 / Pronounced on: January 06, 20]2 , LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARls-lA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghiivinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roiit and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam y\nsari, Advocates. Mr.PankaJ Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Vadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosia and Mr.Dhananjay MehlaAvat,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 respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents 'fhrouah; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAd\'ocatewith Mr.Sanjciy Patbalc Mr.Mohitrao,Jadhav and M.s,Na\'iinSwain. Ms.K.KaumiidiKiran, Advocatesfor LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni. Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr.S.K,Sethi,Mr.Pawan Mathur, IVlr.KunaJ Sharma, Advocaje for DDA .I.A.APP.412/2008& CM.No,4096/2U0S (Cross-Objections),LA.APP.452/2008; LA.A}'P.4fi3/2008;LA.APP.688/20()8& CjVI..No.5990/20]0(Cross-()bieclions)' j.A.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i/2008& CM.N'o.510/2009, (Cross-Oi:jections); I... APP.768/2008; l.A.APP.770/2008; lA.Anp. ]l.y;;/.700fi&connectedAppealsofVillngi;BhartliJil iA.Aop. No. /91/?OaOS conncdedAppealsofVillage-Bilwasari IA.App, IV,). xnnmo &conncciodAppealsofViilagor-ochanpur Page I of 29 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA APP & CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008•& CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP,798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; 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.779/20,11 (CrossnObjections);LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.NO.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM'^N0.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross^Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.]7340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); _ , LA.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008; LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); W LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP,1050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (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.N6.752/2011 (Cross-Objections);' LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1060/2()08;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections);

1...A.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.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA;APP.] 108/2008 & CM.No:3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP. 1111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; f.A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008, & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); ;>• LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/200?^ & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP.l 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); ; • LA.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APPJ166/2008; LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008; LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.l173/2008; ; LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.l179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008; ' . LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/200^; LA.APP.l 186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 l.A.App. No. n95/?.008 & connccted Appeal.?of VillageBharthal • . ' ; I.A.App. No. 294/20.10& connectedAppeal.')ofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 1.1.1/2010&connecteclAppealsofVillagePochanpur' l^age2of29 if % % (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP.] 193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; 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-Obiections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& 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; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 -LA.APP.211/2009; 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.249/2009; l.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 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA. APP .190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009: LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2()09; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; 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; LA.APP. 1138/2008;

1.A.APP.1177/2008;LA.APP,1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA. APP.201/2009; CM.No. 7027/2 009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 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. 1176/2008 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.20'00 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,-Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December OH. 20! J Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN),• DJiVbNr^bRKUMAR ......Appellant Through; .Mf.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. (Mo 1195/2008& coiinHcUidAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connKctodAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 3 of 2,9 $ \ Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki 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, 76li versus UOl & ANR LA.APP

1.A.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.. LA.APP; LA.APP: LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APPi . 52/2010 . 56/2010 00/2010 .242/2010 .282/2010 .287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,'71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. *r' LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP.-80/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP, 313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 • LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 364,/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 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. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732,/2010 828,/2010 C.M.No.964/2011(Cross-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijAvasan,Delhi) AND I.A,/\pp,No. 1195/2008& connGctodAppealsofVillagp Bharthal I.A,App,No, ZM/'/OlO&conncicloriAppnalsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. TIj/2010&connBctc'dAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' ' ' . • V > (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 J.A.APP. 111/2010(VIIXAGE POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49,59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RaJeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain. Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SoraerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.AJ'P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/20.10 395/2010 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. 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.A.PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. •LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 •129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 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 119/201] 429/2011 522/20]1 535/201 1 A.App, U95/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ^.App, No, ;,94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan •A.App N" X.1.1/2010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Q A -4 I (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: f'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcicfoicwith the consent of learned counsel for the partiespresent at the healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'D\mrkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894. pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j. Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthi'ee 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 Blocl< 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12.32 laes per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil), " '

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired LA.App. No, 1195/2008&conti.cledAppeais.ofViliaReBharthal LA.App. No. 2.91/2010&connocledAppealsof VillageBijwasan KA.App. No. .111/20,10&conriHctedAppeal,?of VillagePochanpur Pags6of29 [? y agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation@ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought 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 ra. State ofHaryana and Am\,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs, Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors,^ (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaigaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr,, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALH 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SeALli 362; Avinash DhavdjiNaik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors ra. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 See 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficeriS Anr vs. MJL RafiqSaheh, (2011) 7 see 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, iy\./\pp.No. ai9,V?.008fi cunnHctpdAppealsofVillager[iharthai l.A.App, No. 7.94/ZO.lO& conriHctKdAppnaLsofVillage Bijwasan lA.App, No .111/2010&connectndAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • Page7of29 ~lp Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15; RisalSingh Ors. Fs. Union ofIndia& Anr,, 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union of• India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshhhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia S. Anr, 176(20]1) DLr 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., 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 SushilKum.dr ra. Union ofIndia, decided on

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

(170)DLT371. b. On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiodof time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near lliturealone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsihat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of'Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the iGl Airport,New Delhi lAApp, No. 1195/2008&contiKcledAppealsof VillageBharvhal A.App, No, 29/1/2010&conncctcdAppealsof VillageOijwasan I^.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillaRePochanpur > and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side^ where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasanand Samalldia.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 IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndian Oil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere ^ also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/m'a^to highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

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

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama 1A.App. No. .l.i95/:^008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App.,No. 294/2010&connocledAppealsof Village Bijwasan !..A.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagnPochanpur PaBo9or29 7->- Redd,& On. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ore, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later dctisionin Udho Dass ra. StateofHaryana<S Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingin view the developmentin the area overaperiodof time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot mean thatthereis no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma.leai-ncd counsel for Ihe appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight ^ that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and '-J 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 conclude that these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMali,Dessai vs. StateofGoa andAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice ofthe land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ^ ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circlerates for detenniningthe ^ acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentofmaitetvalue of the acquiredland was sought by iVIr.R.(;odara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson tlie basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by U.e Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potent,ahtyof the acquiredland, determinationof its market value i, - .APP No. 1.1J/,010&corinmedAppMisofVhlagoPochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Poehanpur and . VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above. '

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

23.]0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. Q^eferred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated mj,

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated U.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital . TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordancewith the Imv laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasas 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 Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot loe disregardedin >A.Atip,Np. .1,195/2008&cannectodAppealsof VillageI3harlhal •A.App, NO, 2<M/2010&connectedAppealsof Villageliijwasan

1.A.APP.Mo, .Ul/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoehanpur —Jk case the averagesaleprice 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 be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certanland. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the m.arket value of the subject ; • land while ignoring the material M'hich 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 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment '• rejused to return an actualfinding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationof the MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, 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. 1he 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^^^ amendment of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was A amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor , was electedfrom, there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. 9-h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Suprem.e Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr Union ofIndia and Tefusedto considerthe fact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser would,payfor the-subjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also I.A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No, 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bilwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis M'hollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthe possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of l>yvarka Phase 11. It is reiteratedthat the land use of VillageDhoolSiras and. Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. J) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthe said land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was held,that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto he 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 bv the buddings are to be treated as house sites. The lands yvere acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportionofthe landis beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as,housesites in the nearfuture." n. Jn the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and otiiers of LA. App. No. j47/2009,tlie factual detailshave been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals..

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof l.A.App. No. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Viiiago BIjwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof Villagepochanpur mbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)^ Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-DetcrmmedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area are relevantto determine the market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation leflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of JMJid AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence lor determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special lancy ofthe purchaserand other factors namely,nature, situationofthe Property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ^ ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009),15SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in piice in ashortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons lx)r such sharp increase are explainedby producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008&connected/ippealsof VillageBharthal • ' W.App. Mo. 291/2010&connqctedAppeaLsof VillageBiiwasan l-A.App. No. 11.1./2010&connectedAppealsof VlllaRG Pochanpur ' and the purchaseras no prudentperson having laiowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin tire marlcetwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin tire 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 ratos/Pre-DotcmiinedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a . . Court in (supra) (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerncd,it was urged by Mr.SanjayPoddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objcctoisthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing tlie miniimimindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting tlie enhancement by the ^ ReferenceCourtwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe appreciation@12% ^ per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sidesand upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon i-ccordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling • . • pp. No, .1.1.1/2010&connectedAppalsof VillagePochanpur Page 15 of zg \ seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haiyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation;

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

(Hi) possibilit);ofobtainingM>ater and electricsupplyfor occupantsof buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsorthe 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 m.ay become availableto the occupiersof buildings,if builton the •^ acquiredland; and

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

¶18•1he potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large numberof factors. For the said puiposc, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for iA.App. No. 1.195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal '..A.App.No. VM/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan • LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' Pagel6of29 -^1 \ which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscould not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer& Anr vs, M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference -1^ either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

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

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under;- lA.App. No, 1195/2008&conrinctedAppnalsofVillage Bharthal 1A,App, No, 294/2010&conncctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l-A,App, No, 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur %0 ! "The legal position is that eveia where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, : Mnll he considered. Where hoM^ever there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices 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 M'ith reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to.. "

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

¶23Principlesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court'in Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd, 0^

(ONGC) (Supra),are as under;- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developm.entin the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. lA.App. No. 1195/M08& connccledAppfialsofViilagG Bharlhal IA.App, No. 291/2010& connectedAppealsofVillaRG Bijwasan lA.App. No. 1]1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagG Pochanpur On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the developmentis faster, where the demandfor land, is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2%) per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urhan/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%> per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only aroundhalfof it, that is about5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwould dependupon the same. Normally, recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe market value by providingappropriate escalationover the provedmarket value of nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale tiansactions/a.cquisition.sprecedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond thai it may be unsafe, even if iJ: relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is-only a •few years, may become unsafe and unrelia.ble standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or LA.App. Wo. 119:;/2008&connncledAppaaisofVillageBhartha! LA.App. No. 294/201Ch co.nnnctBdAppealsof VillageEijwasan LA.App No. .11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pa e19 of 29 -4 acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease. "

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictum,ofthe Apex Court in Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex CourtinHSIDC (Supra) is as under:- 'When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, forming of a residential layout, courts have sometim.es felt that determination of their value with reference toprevious status or situation shoidd be avoided and a imiform.rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25[Jndisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around dcquiicd 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., RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had puichased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price ^ which variedfrom ^52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.

¶26Vv^hctheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/]0) which are basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang Beas in lespectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring.18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds LA.App. No. .1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal IA.App. No. 2M/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ..A.App. No. l:l.l/20]0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur -53 -4 % (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 agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/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 Swarni Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25"' March, 2000 was also,subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on'23.8.2011and 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 Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acqun^edlands were beingused for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing l.A.App.Nt). 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillagG IJharthal ' • lAApp. No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ^ market price of the land m 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 (jix.PW-1/4 to Iix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Plighway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (lix.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had letchcd 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 ofsimilariy situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionof 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. ^

¶30• Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are,as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood 1A.App. Mo. 1195/2008& connocLed,AppealsofVillaRG Bharlhal l.A.App. No. 294/2010& connficiedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan lA.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillageFochanpur Pa e22 \ or whetheritbe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland, with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon 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 what could be 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 was put-and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its ^^'^^^dingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is'no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland, indicatingthat there M'as no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifform.ed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chaml (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Followmg the dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No,.1.1.%/2008&conn.ctodAppealsofVillageBharthal A,App. No. 2M/2010&connnctndAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. Ill/M.1.0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur \ the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court . hds lightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue ofthe land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the yeai 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedsenior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum 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 price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt piogiessiveincrease method in assessmen-tof the .market value of the acquiredland"only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a 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., of DwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-IIis ol sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate l-A.App. No. ],l,9:i/2008&connKctedAppealsof VillageBharthal l-A.App. No. 294/2010&connficlcdAppealsofVillageBIjwasan i.A,App.No. 1.1..1,/2010&connect(!dAppealsof VillagePochanpur -4 m cscaJationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a cooidinatcbench of this Court in Sushil Kuniar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12%) per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum, hi this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's mmimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt IS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%o per annum granted by the ReferenceC.ourt 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.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertainmg to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe 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 1994 the land use of the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto I.A.App, No. 119.V2d08&connfictedAppenisof VillageBharthal IV>..App. No. .^94/2010&connoctcdAppealsof VillageBijwa,san LA.App. No. 11..1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only thts, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beos heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, I894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been , , increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe ^ acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then C| appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Hx.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands , and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient giound to giant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of-the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded ior the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agricultural!and in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is agap between what lAApp. No. .1,195/2008&connactodAppealsofVillageBharthal lA a""' w"' ^ connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan (A.App. No. 1.1.1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 26 of 2.9 V h would be expected 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 in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra)and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question. iMndingof the ReferenceCourtinmatterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGl Airport,Indian Oil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NIi-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,PartI and Part11, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityof the acquiredlands has somehow missed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof this' Court, on accountof aloresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityofDwarkaPhc^se-I. What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the l.A.App. No. .1.195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagfiBijv^asan LA.App. No; 1.1.1/2010&connectedAppesl.sof VillagePochanpur \ : settled legal position aptly liighliglitedby the Apext Court in Mina NausherwmKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached ti^at there was the posMtyofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup bjldmgsmthe immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion ' ^oud be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable to sucin. buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the faet that exactnessean never be achieved in the ,:,attersol^ assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthern with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePoehanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan.However,while relying upon the decision in .fe/,,7 (Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe maiket valueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby theReferenceCourtin ^ these matters on account of the aforesaid loeational advantages ^ providingahigl,erbuildingpotentialitymthe acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10"/.increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the . CfcrenceCourt in matter.,pertainingto VillageBharthaland Village ^-iwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePoehanpurat parwith . -he appellantsofVillageBharW.td VillageBi,jwasa".the appealsof o.Ul,/20.10&conncctGdAppc,!.,ofVillagepoehanpur LA

1.""..App LA \ / % the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^bS^lbrthe Category A land and @^14,69,600/-per bj.pha for the Category lands in question.

¶41On the aloresaid 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 periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, ior which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶421he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof m the aloresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar General oi this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. ' (SUNILGAUR) JUDGE January 06, 2012 pkb I'ol ('n'--( r ; /• lAApp, No. 1195/2008&conneclodAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. imnow&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan y\.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Annpnknf\/iii,r," . u. & connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l^.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePoclianp IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SI-IARMA Appellant , Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvmder 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.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOP 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.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrectionin Orderof6''" January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page i % ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointedout by the respondentin the decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'perbigha' whereas it should be "per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants:Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in pai-agraph no; 40 of LA.App.No! 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessaiy correctionsbe Garriedout forthwith. I In vjew of.the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY12, 2012 JUDGE pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

* % % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1166/2008 SATINDER Tlirough: Reservedon: NovemberIS • 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash,Ms.Smita• Maan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.JitinTewathia,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.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhoslaand Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaklaur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR