Mahender Singh v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No.1195/2008,titled as 'RanbirSharma V5. Union of India & Anr. -t^^ILGAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. # % B • LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILL RANBJR SHARIvlA Throuiih: Mr.N.S Mr.S.K Advocr Mr, Pan Mr.Raj and Mr Mr.H.S Mr.l.S. Mr.Atii Mr.N.S responc versus UNION OF INDIA & AN"R rhrou.ah; Mr.SanJayPoddar,Sen/or,A.d^'ocatevvitti Mr;Sc,i.nia'y Pathak, Vlr.lVlohitrac. .ladhtrv-and M.s.Na\'lin t)wau'i. Ms.K.K.aumudi Kiran. Advocates for LAC./UOI Mr.AJay Verma, Ms.Beenasha-vv Soni. Mr.Mukcsh Kumar, Mr S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pav/an Ivlathur, Mr.K.unaj Sharmal Advocate fcr DDA !.,^.A?P.412/2008 & CM.N

1.A.APP.453./2008; LA.APP. !,.A.A1''P.697/2008 & CM.N4 CMNo.510/2009 (Cros,s-Ob l/i.,App, [>;•(). :,19!3/^008& corncct'ed Appn;ilsof VilliigcEih;irl.li:.il iA..Ado. No. /94/ZOlOS c;onnc;r'.cdAppc;al.soi'-VillJigoBi!ijv;r..dti 1A.App. iVi). & connocKid App-salso-r ViikijicI'-ochanpur POCW DELHI Fronoimced on: January 06, _2012 (GRID-A) ..... Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash,Ms.Smka Maan, Mr.ll.SA-'^erma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Ra^hnvinderGodara,Advocate Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, ites. caj \'iveic, Advocate 3sh Yadav. Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit KJ-iosla ]3hananjay Mehlawal, Advocates R,auiela, Advocate 3ahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhnr. Advocate Tripathi, Advocal,e. Negi and Mr.FI.S.RaiUela, (./Vdvocaies ior em in app^^aisfiled by IJOI) Respondents ,4096/2008- •(Ci-oss-Objectious), f.A.APP.452/2008; 88/2008 CM.No-.5990/2010 (Cross-Objeciions); .433/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,701/2008 & lections): APP,768/200R; l.A.APP,770/2008;, PUBO I. 01 29 {-a LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 ' (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & 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.' LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP. CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; CM.No.709/2009 LA.APP.974/2008 LA.APP.976/2008; (Cross-Objections),LA.APP.99 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.^ l.,A.APP. 1047/2008;LA. APP. 1 LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.^ LA.APP.l051/2008 & CM.N LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.N CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Ob CM.No.752/2011 • (Cross-Ob. (Cross-Obj ecti ons); LA. APP. LA.APP, 1060/2008 ;LA. APP. 1 LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP lA.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP LA.APP. 1084/2008& ' CM.Nc & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross- (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.N CM.No:3839/2009 (Cross-Ob CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Obj CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Ob (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. LA.APP. n26/2008; LA.APP LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP, 82/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); 84/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & ^05/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No. 806/2009 LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; CM.No.77972011 (Cross-Obj ecti ons); LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP.^45/2008; LA.APP. 892/2008 & 818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; 830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & & CM.No.799/2009 LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA-APP.973/2008; CM'.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);(LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.^78/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.i/2,/2009 /2008;LA.APP. 1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); O.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008; 048/2008& Cl\4'.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); o.420/2009 (Cross-Qbjections); LA.APP.1050/2008;

5.17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; j.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & ections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & ections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 059/2008 & CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objeci;ions); 062/2008 CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1074/2008 & CM.N6.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); ,1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); .17302/2008'(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086/2OO8 Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 1093/2008; A.APP. 1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; .441/2009 (Gross-Objections):LA.APP.l 108/2008 & ections); LA.APP.l 109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & ections);, LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & ections); LA.APP.1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 .11.5/2008; LA.APP. 1116/2008; LA.APP. 1121/2008; 1129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); 1131/2008 & CM,No.566/2009 (Cross-Obiections); 1135,/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 137/2008 & CM.Np.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA..APP.1140/200'8; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP. (Cross-0bjections); I;A.APP. LA.APP.l 170/2008; LA.APP. L,A.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. LA.APP.l 182/2008; LA.APP LA .APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. l.^,App. No, 3195/7.008& connectedAppealsofVillageliharthal LA App, No. Z91/20.10& corinGctedAppeals of Village Bi vvasan .LA.App, No. ;i.l:i,/;!niOa connecleclAppealsofVillago PochaiiDur'

157./2008: LA.APP.l 158/2008 & 159/2008; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008; LA.APP.1167/2008& CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; 1171,/2008; LA.APP. 1172/2008; LA.APP. 1173/2008; 1178/2008; LA.APP. 1179/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008; 1183/2008& CM.No.6933,/2009 (Cross-Objeciions); 1185/2008; LA.APP. n86/2008& CM.No.7013,.'2009 ' \ CM.No.7774,'2009 Page 2 0129 # (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP. 1 LA.AFP, 1193/2008; LA.APP. LA.APP.1198/2008& CM.Nc LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP. CM.No,6957/2009(Cross-Obj& CMNo.3841 /2009 (Cross-Obj LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. LA. APP.31/2009; LA.APP LA.APP.42/2009 CM.N LA.APP.73/2009 .& CM.N LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.9; LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. LA.APP. 136/2009; ].A. APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA. APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.2 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.:;

1.A.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; LA.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. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP,2 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP la.ap: LA.APP. 190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 .194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 .6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008 213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& :tions); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& ections); LA.APP!1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008; 276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; 281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008; 33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; O.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009;

0.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; /2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); 109/2009: LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.i35/2009; 137/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; 187/2009; LA.APP.l 90/2009; 198/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; 03/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & 10/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; 27/2009; LA.y\PP.230/2009 & 241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/200Q; LA.APP.513/2009; LA. APP.45/2010; i.AAPP.l 138/2008; u 257/2009; 437/2009; 466/2009; 490/2009; 495/2009; 508/2009; 512/2009; .15/2010; LA.APP. 139/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA. APP.201/2009; CM,No.7027/2009 (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..Ai?P.510/2009; LA. APP. 567/2009; .LA.APP.48/2010; LA.APP.l 176/2008; L/V.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. n j/ ^ oil:. 201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&Bi/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the L.and Acquisition Act, 1894 & y\-ward Mo. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLA DJ^Vl^iNDBR KUMAR Througi l.A.App. No 119.';/20C8& coiinectoci Appeals of Village t LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connHctod Appnals of Village IVi LA.App No. 1.1..1/2010& connected AppnaLsof Village Pr (GRID-B) Reserved on: December OS, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 GE.-BIJWASAN). • . . ' ' Appellant . , .Mr.R.S,'.ronia,r, Mr.Virendra Singh harllial wasan chanpur versus DOI & ANR Through 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. 12-Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-^14;38Jl-46, 49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) ..... Respondents : Mr.San]ay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forLiOL'LAC Mr.S.K.Sola.nki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K, Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOL 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 DI3A.,. 11/2010 . LA.APP., 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 246/.2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP! 281/2010 283/2010 • LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 288/2010 ..LA.APP. 289/2010 . LA.APP. 294/2010 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010

351..'2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 356/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 742/2010. LA.y\PP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2,010 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 406/2010 . L..A.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 438/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 724/2010 I..A,APP.:725./2010 l.,.A.A.PP. 726/2010 729/2010 LA.A.PP. 73L/2010 LA.APP. 732../2010 759/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. 828,/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP. LA. APP. L.A.APP. L.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L.4.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. Ca.app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 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 & LA.APP.^86/2010 LA.APP. 180/2010 C.M^No.954/2011 (Crpss-objections (Relating to Notification No. issued under Section 4 of th 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwas L,A,App, No. .ll'Jlj/'ZOOS& connected Appeals of Village Bhalhnl l,A;App, IMo, 29'!//010 & connectcciAppealsqf Village Bijw;san •'A,App, i\lo. llj/.'-OlQ & connected Appealsof Village Poch inpur F.10(30)96-L& B,/LA/1341-7 dated 13.12.2000 e Laud Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award'No. an, Delhi) AND' • %, ].A.APP. 111/2010 SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: 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. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 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, (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to49, 59, 63 to71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA,Apip.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant inR-22) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain., Advocate:s for UOI/IAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr,Somer K,Seth, Advocates forDDA, 54/2010. 65/2010 $48/2010 .60/2010 , 93/2010 17/2010 96/2010 432/2010 489/2010 39/2010 662/2010 68/2010 1052/2010 6/2011 121/2011 485/2011 25/2011 54/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. •LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. L<-V.APP. la;app: LA.APP. I.A.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 M29/201] •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./\PP. 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 lA,App, No, 1195/2008& conncclndAppealsof VillageBharnal U,App, No, 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l-A.App No 111/2010&" connecledAppealsofVillagePocliarpur-II (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunderSection4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) O K. D E R

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcreiorcwith the consentof learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Notification No.F.10(30)96 to geographically contig . //' in Delhi, commenced December, 2000 under Sec pertaining to vast tract o . comprising of thirteen Rev i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and

¶3Agricultural land of villages stood acquired by t

¶4S-L& B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating 2U0US Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdispos(5dofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess lor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-with the issuance of Notification of 13'^' ;lion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, agricultural land in one compact block '3nue Estates includingvillages in question, Pochanpur. ;he appellajits herein in the aforesaid thi'ee ;iie Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2(|03; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting Compensation fed ?13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A', (level fi.eld - wifi top soil) and @ ^12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil). Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheii' acquired l-A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals.ofVillageBharthal. I.A.App. No. ?.9i/?.010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasin lA.App. No. ni/20.10 & connectedAppealsofVillagePocharpur agricultural lands, appellar the Land Acquisition Act, judgment had enhanced compensation @ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the Ic^ its had sought reference under Section 18 of '894 and the Reference Court vide impugned , appellants' acquired land i their Block 'B' land in refcrences relating to Villa n. Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for Villages Bharthal and BijM^asan; whereas, ^e Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5• In these appeals, furdier enhancement of compensation sought b)/ the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensation at the rate o: the precedents in the si Karmitaka Housing Boaf Ors., (2011)2 see 246;^

(2010) 13 See710;5'MM Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon lape of decisions in Executive Engineer, d vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag md njani Molii Dessaivs. State ofGoa and Anr., Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Ann,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Bead) through LRs. Fs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisiti and Anr, vs. Union oflna

(D) through LRs vs. The 2011.(2) SCALE 321; Jai Rama Nand (since deceas 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); 2010(9) SeALE 41; Cha & Ore., (2010) 3 see 661; la AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira I Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ, 221\ ed) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia Anr..,' Udho Dass vs. State of 'Haryana & Ors., kas V.S. State of Punjab 'cf Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash DhavajiNaik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 sec 171; Atma Sing Haryana & Anr, (2008) Smt Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha'& Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Officer Anr vs.,MJLRafiqSaheb, (2011) i Devfibkaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, h (Dead) through 'LRs and Ors vs. 2 see 568; W.P.(e) No, 4143/2003'titled as Special Land Acquisition 7 see 714; Thakarsibha LA.App. No. :i.l9:)/?008&connectfidAppealsofVillaget l.A.App. No. ?.94/?.010& connnctadAppealsofVillaRH Bi lA.App. No 131/2010& conneclRdAppealsofVillagePt harthai wasan chanpur Pago 7 of 29 Gujarat ami Anr., AIR Developmejtt Corporation, Natural Gas Corporation Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; (Land Acquisition) and A Allahabad Development 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial

(2010) 11 see 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs.. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union of India-and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Valliyammal and Anr w. Special Tehsildar nr., AIR 2011 SC-2937; Kiran Tandon vs.. Authority,

(2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State' of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; liapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Fso Union of India sfe Anr, 176(20]1) DLF 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as 'Surat'Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & .Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Prakash (dead) byLRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; India,

(1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. il Kum.ar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs, India, decided on 07.06.2011; and Ehule Ram Union ofIndia, 2010

(170)DLT371. •

¶6On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it 11, learned' arguing counsel for the appellants on of the acquired agricultural land has to be to, appreciate its potential which' must be ;he devciopraent in the area over a period of limited to the near future alone. Satpal & Ors vs. Union No.656/2008 titled as Sus was urged by Mr.B.S.Maa that the location and situati first understood in order adjudged keeping in view time and the same cannot b 7, It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar, counsel for appellants ihat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpur bro passes through the land of i.e., on the eastern side of t id gage railway •line of Village Biijwasan Village .Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, le railway line is the IGI Airport, New Delhi LA.App. No. 119?/2008 & connecled Appeals of Village Bhariha! lA.App: IMo. 29t/Z010 & coimGctnd Appeals of Village Iiij\Aasan !,A.App. IMo. 1.11/2010 & connecLod Appeals of Village Pochanpu^- Page 8 of 7.9 • -l.A.App, . !.A App LA.App, Ak 'T-and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road meters wide starting from >FH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-iin divides the agricultural land into two side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) developed Farm ILouses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquired for the extension ir 1971 and again in the year 1980 for its and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat '^illageElharthaland VillagePochanpurwere 84 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were elopment of Pliase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. 'ks sizras/rm.pto highlightthat the boundary Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are City Part-I and Part-II ag portions; (i) North Eastern South Eastern side, where of IGI Airport in the ye£ establishingIndian Oil Depc Petroleum and the lands of A also acquired in the year 19 the lands on the western sidi also acquired for the dev Attention was drawn to the c oT Village Bharthal, Villag contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurg appellants that the Refere potentiality of the acquired illegally treated the acqui Notification of 16"^ Octobe villages in question was ;d by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counscl for the nee Court has failed to appreciate the land in the light of its location and has "ed •land to be agricultural in spite of •, 2000 vide which land use of the three hcinged from agriculturaT to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. aijid infact the entire land ofVillageBharthal had ceased to be rural in viev '• ofthe Notificationof 24'" October,1994,

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsth£ VvTongly discarded by the R Mo. ili)!i/2008&connoctGdAppealsofVillage Bhartt ,No. .'.94/2010& connoclGdAppc:aliofVillageBijwasa No, .Ul/;i010 & conneclcdAppealsofVillagfiPochan t the aforesaid two Notifications have been eference Court by relying upon P. al n pur Pago 9 of 23 LA.App 'LA.App , I.A'.App Reddi&Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has hem consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionm. Udho Dass vs. StateofHaiyana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepmg mview the devekpmentin the area over aperiodof time and the same cannot be limit3d to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality. by Mr.B.D;Sharma,learned counsel for the ale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlight thereinvariedfrom ?52-lacsto ^62 lacs and variation, these sale exemplars cannot be ,ally done by the ReferenceCourt, because there IS no basis to concluc:ethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued bccause of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjimiMolu Dessai vs. StateofGoa andAm,, (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe market price of the 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 ReferenceCourtupon the miiimumrates/circlerates for detenniningthe and is patently erroneous. value of the acquired land was sought by Mi.R.Godara,learned couns41 for the appellantson the basis of the I.& DO rates hxed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-e Government for'allotment of alternate keepingin view the location,situationand

¶10Reliance was placed appellants upon the seven J that the sale price reflected merely -because of the said thrown out as has been ille marketvalueofthe acquired 11• Assessment of market determined rates fixed by tl plots in the year 2000-2001. I potcnliaiityof the acquired iknd. dclerminationof its market value i.s No. 1195/2008&coiinoctedAppealsofVillageBhartha No. 294/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwa.san No. 111/2010a connectedAppealsof VillagePochanp sought on the strength of Village Samalkha or alternat developed lands in Dwark DeterminedRates (PDRs)as

¶12In the written synopsii of,LA. App. "No. 295/2009 following grounds:- 3ale exemplars of .Village Pochanpur and .vely on thfe;basis of the L& DO rates of the a Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-referred to above. , appellant - Impulse India Private Limited nas assailed the impugned judgment on the a) "Ignores the ach respondent about

23.10.2002 being proceedings Civil lowledgement on the part of the the Award. No. 26/2002-2003 dated flaM>ed in the course of-the Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated •7.7.2007) . b) Does not account dated 18.9.1987 aa the area for naore t under Section 5 of issued. c) 'Valuing the land

11.9.2001 issued by Territory ofDelhi i. down by various dec recent decisions of Sangunthala versus for the faci that the Public Notice versely affected the rates of land in han 15 years before the Notification the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was d) Ignores the eviden .established law has the value ofthe lana on the basis of •the letter dated the GovernmentofNational Capital not in accordance with the law laid, isions including in one of the more the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in Tahsildar. 2010(3) see 661. ' ze and other factors which as per to be considered before ascertaining under .acquisition. e) Does not deal with 'disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the L case of Chinda /- Acquisition Officer, Hon'ble Supreme C Deed showing highe lon'ble Supreme Court in the recent \ikira Patil versus Special Land Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The ourt has specifically held that Sale r rate sluruld not be disregarded in l7\.App. No, 119!i/2008& connected Appealsof Village Dharth I.A.App. No. 794/2010& connGctndAppealsofVillageBijwasar LA.App. [Mb. .1.11/2010& connected Appeal.?of VillagePochanp case, the average sa Molu Dessai V5. St Supreme Court hai exemplars and not sales transactions adjudicating upon c f) Relied upon jud^ No.97A/2006 to de land while ignoring market value of the acre in Block A ant of the law laid do including in Subh see

¶444As a co •refused to return c framed on 27.2.200 le price is lower. Further in Anjana 2te ofGoa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the also hild that the highest of the by averaging of different types of should be considered while ompensation upon a certan land. yment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC nde the market value of the subject the material which indicate that the land is much higher than 15 lac per iX13,36,000 in Block B in violation wn by the lion'ble Suprem.e Court Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) nsequence, the impugned judgment n actual finding on the issue No.l g) Evaluated the land Notification of the as agricultural land although vide Municipal Corpofdtion of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed, and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. d Notifications of Government for show that in future land can be The masterplan ar land use change subjected to residential, commercial and other "permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"^ cunendment' of the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 LX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the Icmd is situated, M>as deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. ' . h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR. Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vi'. Union of India and refused to consider thefact that the development in the area has a direft effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpa_ Ignored the fact vfcjr,the.subject land. '.hat Respondent 'No. 2 ' had also al I.A.^pp.No, 1195/2G08 & connncled Appeals of Village Bharths LA.App, No, iS'l/ZOlO & connecled Appeals of Village Biiwd,sai LA.App. No, .111/2010 & connecled Appeals of Village Pochanpur 2^ PaRO 12 of 29 auctioned similarl) at the rate of abo said land is wholly 2) situated land as commercial blocks ut ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the underdeveloped,land. j)' The valuationof th pre-determined aub for similarly situat e subject land is even lower than the :tion rates set by Respondent No. 2 •ed. land. k) Does not take into the use of the land development purp> reiterated that the Bharthal was chai agricultural and ca ofDelhi State. account the possibility of change of although the land: was acquiredfor oses of Dwarka Phase II. It is land use of VillageDhool Siras and iged and these areas ceased to be me now under the urban boundaries I) Ignored Notificatio although they potentiality of the sc ns dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10J994 'early establish the commercial lid land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(2010) 3see 661 it was held. that,thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurpo. needs to be consider m.) The presence of a acquired and the buildings are to be were acquired for quarters. As a portic house site, the adj es in immediate or in near future •ed. number of buildings on the lands said land being occupied by the treated as house sites. The lands purpose of putting up residential m. oj the land is being considered,as lining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture. "

¶3In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 47/2009,the factual details^ave been providedwith a prayerthat the •eated at par with the co-appellants of the appeals. appellants of this appeal be ti other appeals in these bunch o.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfof the appellants,it was urged by Mr LA.App. No. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bhartha I.A.App. (Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagn Bijwasan LA..App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpu Anarid Yadav, Advocate that the effect of # urbanization of the lands i land use has been conside of Maharashtra, AIR 200' Ors. •Vs, Union of India been relied upon by the F value of the acquired k Poddar, learned Senior Con Land Acquisition Act, 189 admissible evidence but th' for determination of the properly connected with t fancy of the purchaser and TP-n the Villages in question, i.e., the change in •ed in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar' vs. State ) SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) •& & 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 th(; appellantsare comparableand oughtto have .eference Court to assess the correct market Jids. 'Ihus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and ade;quaie m.arketvalue for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay nsel urged that though as per Section 51-A of 4, a certified copy of the Sale r3eed is an same cannot be taken as relevant evidence market value unless and until the same is le land in question and element of special other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the.^'illage etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instances reliec market value of the acquir Reference Court and while • I's. Union of India, 2002 i India,. (1997) 11 SCC 423^, Lai Chand vs\ Union of India and Anr.,

(2009). 15 SCC 769; LA. A.' Union of India, decided on in price in a short period ca such sharp increase are exj upon by the Respondents disclosing correct :d lands have been illegally rejected by the ^lacingreliance upon the decisions in Jai Lai 62) DRJ 227,- Satpaf & Ors vs. Union of PP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar w.

26.09.2011, it was',urged that sharp increase inol be taken to be realistic until reasons for )lained by producing in evidence the seller . No,11915/2008& connected Appeals of Village Bha , No,294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBiiwa LA.App, LA.App. LA,App, No. 111/2010 & connected Appealsof Village Pociianpur •thai ;an 2fl and the purchaseras no Drudent person having Icnowledgeof the usual prevalent trend in the mai ket wouldpay such a higherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for speci behalf of the cross-obj Determined Rates cannot Apex Court in Lai Chi coordinate Bench of this < (supra).

¶6So far as potentialityof the land is concerned, it was urged by d senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-^ s alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the of the agriculturalland by the Govemmeiitas on 1'' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, maiket value of the acquired lands has been erroneously dcteimined by the Reference Court,:',as in Sushi! Kumar [supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted t that thereis'noscopefor fyrtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired Acquisition(Collectorand so, the impugned modified deleting the enhancement by the ig into considerationthe appreciation 12%) al consideration.Thus, it was contended on ector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-be countenancedin view of the decision of md (supra) which has been followed by a curt in Sushi!Kumar (supra)andRajSingh Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learne objectors that the same h£ minimumindicativeprice lands as fixed by the Lane judgment deserves to be Reference Court while taki , per annum and the same ceserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. •• •

¶17After considering th sides and upofi close perusa e rival submissions advanced by both the of the impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,what emergesis that the truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is ths pricepaid,by willingpurchaserto awilling I.A.App, No. 1195/M08&connGctf!ciAppealsof VillageBharthnI LA.App. f>lo. 294/;?010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. roo, 1.1.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoch<inpur Page 15 of 2.3 m l.A,App ITs.App, • LA.App. 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 Ors'-I2010(9)SCALE41 in these words:- "(i) the situation of the town or vill hecaitse of its. religious or any 'he acquired land vis-a-vis the city or 2ge which had been growing in size commercial, industrial, educational, other kind of importance or because

(ii) ofits explosivepopulation; the suitability q buildings, be the acquired land for putting up the they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) possibilityof obtainingM>dter and electric supplyfor occupants of buildings to beput up on that land;

(iv) absence ofstatu 'ory impediments or the likefor using the acquired landfor buildingpurpose;

(V) existence of h building plots o ghways, public roads, layouts of developed residential extensions in the vicinity or chse proximity of the acquired land;

(vi) benefits or adv health care cen areas of the c available to the antages of educational institutions, 'res, or the like in the surrounding cquired land which may become occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands around th^ acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to speci,fyafew. "

¶18I'he potential ity of lane for the purpose, of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not )nly have to. bear ih mind the purpose for No. .119.'j/2008& connectGd Appeals of Village Bhartha No. ?.-'M/2010& connected Appeals of Village Bijwasa No, Hl/2010 & connected Appeal.sof VillagePochan . # which the lands were soug events to some extent. It h Avinash (supra). While reite It to be acquired but also the subsequent s been so observed by the Apex Court in •ating the relevant factors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court ' in Atma Singh (supra) that t upon by the appellants could when exemplars of large piec

¶19Aforesaid dictum stan Land Acquisition .Officer & le-exemplars of small pieces of land relied not be a ground to discard them especially 3S of land were not ^'available. is reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Anr vs, MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC .714. The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants either in location, situation is that where there is no basic difference or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, tl compensation on the ground atid the acquired land.

¶20Tt is a well establishc proving the true market valu has acquired the agricultura equally true that the burden awarded is on the claimant. Apex Court in Kiran Tandon ere is no justification for reducing the jf distance between similarly situated lands d proposition of law that the burden of 3 of the acquired land is on the State who land for a particular purpose. But, it is of,proving inadequacy of compensation For this proposition, the decision of the (Supra) can be referred to Vvith advantage,

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note of the fact I I that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards developmeit charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court \n Anjam Mohi Dessai (Supra) deserve aLtention, which are as under:- l,A.App. lA.App. l,A.App. No. 1195/200S & connected Appeals of Village Bharth No. 3.94/JOlO& connGcted-Appealsof VillageBijwasar Mo. 1.1.1//!01.0& connected Appealsof VillagePochanp "The legal position exemplars with ref& highest of the exemp is that even where there are several rence to similar lands, usually the lars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales eprices range in a narrow bandwidth, can be taken, as representing the ere the values disclosed in respect of ofsimilar lands whos the average thereoj market price. But wl tM'o sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they ar that the lower value or other price depres cannot be resorted, to 'e with reference to dissimilar lands or sale is on account of under-valuation sing reasons. Consequently averaging

¶22It would be worthwhi pertaining to determination by the Apex Coiirt in follows;- ile to talce note of the chnching observations of fair market rate of acquired lands made II (Supra), which are as

¶23'7/ is well settled transactions in respe its absence the bona point of acquisitic neighborhood of the value or utilitv taker the willing vendor true value, as qgreec acting in the normal determine the market Principles to determi that genuine and bona fide sale ct of the land under acquisition or in fide sale transactions proximate to the n of the lands situated in the acquired lands possessing similar place betweeh a willing vendee and. hich. could, be expected to reflect the I between reasonable prudent persons market conditions are the real basis to value. " le the-market value of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Coutt in Oil ami Natural Gas Corpo.rationLtiL

(ONGC) (Supra), are as unceer;- "Primarily, the increase in. land prices depends on four factors - situation o^ surrounding area, a\ the area, and the de ' areas unless there is vicinity, increase in gradual, without any ^the land, nature of development in 'ailability of land for development in mand for land in the area. In rural a.ny prospect of development in the prices would be slow, steady and mdden spurts or jumps. lA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connncted Appeal.sof Village Bharthal i.A.App. No. 291/2.010 & conncctecl .Appeals of VillagG BIJwe.san LA.App. No. 1] 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur m On the other hand, in development is faste, and where there is escalation in markei compared to rural ar •to rapid develbpme escalations in prices more per year, diirin remote rural areas development and ha) for years or rose mar per annum. There increases in market areas and increases areas. Therefore ij urban/semi-urban ar the corresponding inc only around half of it This rule of thumb nineties, to be adopt evidence relating to special reasons for c any specific evidence prices, then the incre the same. ^7 urban or semi-urban areas, where the , where the demand for land is high construction activity all around, the price is :ai a miich higher rate, as eas. In some pockets in big cities, due nt and high,•demand for land, the have touched even 30% to 50% or the nineties. On the other extreme, in where there was •no chance of any 'd.ly any buyers, the prices stagnated ginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% is thus a significant difference in value of lands in urban/semi-urban in market value of lands in the rural the increase in market value in as is about 10% to 15% per annum, reases in rural areas would at best be that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum, refers to the general trend in the in the absence of clear and specific increase in-prices. Where there are ipplying a higher rate of increase, or relating to the actual increase in ase to he applied would depend upon ed Normally, recourse i. market value by pro\ proved.market value evidenced by sale tra is no evidence ofany acquisitions ofcompc said m.ethod is reas land. What may be a few years, may bea • taken to tlae mode of determining the iding appropriate escalation over the of nearby lands in previousyears (as nsactions or acquisition), where there contemporaneous sale transactions or rable lands iri the. neighbourhood. The onably safe where the reUed-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the 'subject acquisition by only a few years, lhat is upta four tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a.,, neighbouring reliable standard if the gap is only a. vne %irisafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example', for determining the m.arket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the with reference to a sale annual . increase me or IA.Arp. No. 1195/200(?&. connficlEdAppaalsof VillageBhakha! LA.A'po. No. 2.94/2010& conncictedAppealscif VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. Il.l/?.0l6& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanp'ji l.A.App,

1.A.App, l.A.App, nX acquisition in 1970 ot 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the cqiirse of years, the; 'rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard, of increase. "

¶24This Court is mindful State Industrial Developmet computation of compensat comparative sales methods; ' (Supra) is as under;- 3fthe dictum ofthe Apex CourtinHaryana tt Corporation(HSIDC) (Supra),regarding on for the acquired lands by adopting A^hat was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC "When differentcateg siluational advantages) sav for forming of som.etim.es felt that reference to previous and. a. uniform,rate of all lands acquired undi Dries oflands (or lands with different are acquired for the same purpose, a residential layout, courts have determination of their value with tatus or situation should be avoided, compensation shotdd be awarded for ^.er the same notification." IS. Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bl* question are not available an upon by the appellants is c Deeds vide which religious ii had purchased the agricultu which varied from ?52 lacs tc

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Biswas situatedin VillagePo the land in the villagesin qucj to be answered. Evidently, a arthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in d the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied f Village Ppchanpur, i.e., the seven Sale istitution.I.e., Radha SwamiSatsang,Beas :al land in Village Pochanpur at a price ^67. lacs per acre. Deeds (lix.PW-I/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)which are basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha Swam.iSatsang Beas in respectof the compactblock of land measuring18 Bighasand 6 :haripurrel^ect the correct market value of tion is the moot questionwhich is required foresaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds No. .1.195/2008& conriectGdAppEalsofVillage BharthE No. 29<V2010& connGctGdAppealsofVillage Bijwasai No. .l:ll/20]0 & conncctedAppealsofVillagePochanp (Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-1/; to ?62 lacs per acre. IV the aforesaid lands. Evid each parcel of land of 0) indicate that its price varies from ?52 lacs leaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (fex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It Avas dependentupon the natureand situationof ence to establish the advantages attached to ;hese sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosing representative • special need of the pure 3rice for the acquired lands in question. The baser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been ser/vendee'of these agricultural land has not appellants, Had the purcliaser/vendee of the Deen got examined, then it could have been brought out as the purch£ been got examined by the aforesaid sale exemplars elicited Irom him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special Satsang, Beas who had p exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25 March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh y.?. JJnion of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Fmj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the afon^said decisions,the sale exemplarof Village vhile holding that the same cannot be ti-eated the acquired lands. 27, Iri the instant matteijs, though the land-use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriortO| their acquisition,but it has come in evidence 3 being used for agriculturalpurposetill their. les evident that the acquired lands were not :nt person having knowledge of prevailijig fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami -irchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an Mamurpur was discarded ^ as representative price for that the acquired lands wer acquisition. Thus, h becon developed lands. No prud LA.App. No. 1.195/2008& connGCtedAppealsof Village Bh LA.App. No. 294/2010& r.onnectcdAppealsofVlllageBijvi LA.App. No. ill/2010 & connectedAppealsofVillagePoc arlhal asan lanpur ih Vi 1° uestion would pay such a high price unless ant for special consideration and so, in the !ourt the sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds )) have been rightly discarded by the market price of the land in qi and until such purchase is mc considered opinion of this (Kx.PW-1/4 to F.x.PW-1/1 Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^^1,76,55,172.41per acre rehting to Sale Deed of 27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was lighway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed d not only the land but the structure thereon fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar nesentative price for the acquired lands in situated on the National H (iix.PW-1/11) vendor had so including tube weH, boring, it had fetched such a high cannot be treated as a repi m question.

¶9Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly , now it is required to be considered as to ' circular rates for .the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in • question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. R Land Acquisition \Officer Hyderabad Urban Development I Authority Hyderabad and ]995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- I '72. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acqvured land, with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood situated lands in the vicinit> whether adoption of L& DC IA..'\pp. No. 1195/2008 & i;onner,led Appnals of VillaBS Bharthal l.A.App.No. 294/2010 & connccted Appeals of Village; Bijwas in ll^./spp.No. .1..T.1/2010Rconno!cledAppealsof VillagePochanpiir Page 22 of :?.9 ik or whether it be the de acquired land, with bi theprice fetchedby sa. layout of buildingplot inevitable for the Cour. fetched or to befetched . relied upon by any oft which the plots could publication of the pn 4(1) of the Act. Furthe by the sales of theplo neighborhood of the •then what could be the acquired land publication under Secti the actual use to which a small percentage buildingpotentiality a be made available increase to be given value of the land four since resort to the me such building potenti evidence of sales of bt the acquired land indi demand, as such, for acquired land. " In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and -2) terminationofthe market value ofthe ildingpotentiality with reference to 'e ofbuildingplots in an undeveloped 's in the neighborhood, it becomes 't to find out what Mnll be the price. i by thesales ofplots in the layouts, heparties,with referenceto theprice havefetchedifsoldon the date of the 'liminary notification under Section where no evidenceofprice fetched ts in layouts of buildingplots in the acquired lands becomes available, \e is tofind out the marketvalue of reference to the relevant date of ion 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto it Mm put and increaseits value by ving regard to the degree of its iscertained on the basis of evidence to that regard. A small percentage '•all not exceed l/5th of the market id out according to its actual user thod of giving increasedvalue for 'clity arises only when there is no lildingplots in the neighborhoodof •ating that there was no immediate Duildingplots even ifform.ed in the don with ha m sh

¶31Hl^- •transferringperpetual leasehc (Supra), held that it is not sa ratcs/Pre-Determined Rates i and Sushil Kumar (Supra) developedlands as being not lA.App, No. l,19|]/2008& connoctndAppealsofVillage Bhartha LA.App. No. 291/^010&connecfodAppealsof Village BIjwasan LA.fi.pp. IMo. U.1/20.10&connecledAppealsofVillagePochanpi Id rights, the Apex Court in Lai :e or advisable to rely upon the allotment n determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chand (Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) has excluded the:' DDA rates qua the •elevantfor assessingthe market value of Pafie 23 of 29 the undeveloped acquired has riglitly not adopted the the DDA's Pre-Determined market value of the acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court DDA rates for allotment of developed land or Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now v/hat is require method would be relevant d to be. seen is whether progressive increase criteria for assessing the market value of the land in questionwhile takinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in Village B larthal and other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, the respondent/cross-objector that even if the :led rate of 10% per annum is taken from the 2000, i.e., for the period intervening' the :ient of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentof DwarkaPhase-II,still the price fixed by the Land AcquisitionColle:toris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.'

¶33Aforesaid argument the Apex Court in Lai Ch learned senior counsel for escalation at the compounc year 1984 till the year. Notification for developr does not hold good in view of the dictum of and (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt pi^ogressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land' only when tl' be unsafe, even if it relat e gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may 3S to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandard,if the gap|is of only of a few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dv/arka Phase-II is of sixteen years and therefore,-it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing 'appropriate LA.App. No. n,9S/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bha.-thal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & conncctud Appeals of Village Bijwisan LA.App, No,111/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagePoclianpur t escalation over the market

¶34Mr.Sanjay Podda respondent/cross-objector granted escalation @ 12 coordinate bench of this ( escalation @ 10% per ar Sushi! Kumar (Supra), 1 potentiality/ of the acquir determined by the Referen upon Sushil Kumar (Supr @ 12% per annum cannot the matter,the cross-object 3,5. Now what is to be minimumprice of the agric is reasonable criteria for d land and as to whether the S 2:? valueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears. •, learned' senior counsel for the had urged that the Reference Court has /o per amium, which is unwarranted as a ^ourt in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has, granted .num. Alter having perused the decision in :md that 10% increase on account of higher ed land over and above the market value :e Court has been grantedand so, by relying

i) escalation granted by the Reference Court

¶10reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of ons of the respondent are dismissed. seen is whether adoption of tiovcrnment's culturalland in Delhi, by the Reference Court leterminingthe market value of the acquired escalationof 12% per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f l" April;2000 till the date of Notilication.in the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not. 36, Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notifi-ca-ion in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause ihe acquiredland had ceased to I • •. be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be >resaidNotification of the year 1994 the land changed but that by itself is not sufficient to urban. It is true that vide afc use of the acquired land had I.A.App. No. ll'IS/ZOGS& connectedAppealsof VillageBhahhni lA.App. No. /'.94/2010&, conncctfidAppealsofVillage Bijwasan ,I.A.App. No. ].l.:i/Z0,10& connectedAppealsofVillagePochiinpur presume that the acquired aspect of there being any de in question. Not only this, Satsan^,Beas heavilyrelied ofthe s^id landswas for agri' , j7. Rather, it emerges fi issuance of Notification und 1894, the acquired lands we increase,in price due to highe acquired lands upon chang( appellants could have laid the in .question.But, indeed appe in Village Pochanpurto a rel lands -had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital eloprnentin and around the acquiredlands even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami upon by the appellants disclose that the sale :ultural purpose. om the evidence /on record that till the er Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, le put to agricultural use. Had there been r demand,on accountofpotentialityofthe of their use post the year 1994, then ir hands on other sale instancesin the area lants cannotrely upon the sale of the land :gious institutionand anothersale instance of .Village Samallcha (Ex.PMZ-l/U)witliout leading any evidence to cstablislithat the qualityand ])Otentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof 1) are comparablewith the acquiredlands acquired .land with the sale instance of' /II) cannot'be treated to be sufficient VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/1 and so the contiguity of the Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-sale instances. Therefore, in ^ ground to grant highercomp|«safi"nwhile relyingupon the aforesaid '"iew ot the aforc-referred dictum of-the •.'l-A.App, iXAPfl; i.A,Ap| Apex Court in Haiyana State Indusmal DevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate of compensation dese,rves to be awarded lor the lands acquired under ihe same Notificationin the light of tiie minimum price fixed by the Delhi, which generally facto potentiality. Taking note of th IJio. 11.95/2008&cbnnoctudAppeal.sof VillageBharthal No. 294/20.10&con.ncctndAppealsofVillage Bijwasan Mo, 111/20.1.0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Governmentfor the agriculturafland in "s in the rise of price due to higher 3 fact that there is a gap between what would be expected to be actuallygrown, Governmei-]^t to be reasonable basis for lands in Jai Singh (Supra) no reason to take a differen coordinate Bench of this (Supra) and Siishil Kumar the market growth and what the market had 's minimum agricultural price has been held assessing the market value of the acquired well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I fmd view than the one which had been taken by Jourt in the aforesaid cases of Jai (Supra). as

¶38This Court is of the the matters pertaining to rightly relied upon the Go lands in Delhi to fix the ma •landing of the Reference Cc Bijwasan, of there being no of the acquired lands is sim Bharat Petroleum Depots ai I3harthal and there being a considered view that the Reference Court in /illage Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has vernment's minimum price for agricultural rket value of the acquired lands in question, urt in matter of Village Bharthal and Village evidence that the potential and the situation ilar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidenceon record.But I fir.dthat the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,IndianOil and id of Railway line passing through Village 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 •Irom Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two port.ons, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of atoresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume higher buildingpoteitiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phasc-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the ,l/,.App. No.1,191/2008& connected Appeals of VillageBharllhal .'.J-A.App.No. 294/2010& corinectedAppnalsofVillageBijvi/asin "•i.A.App. No.-111/2010& co.nnectedAppesl.sofVillagePochaiipur settled legal position apth NaushenvanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords;- JVhen once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buddingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientlo hold that the acquiredland had a ui ing potentialityand proceedto determine its market va ue takinginto account the increasein priceattributable to such buildingpoter^-' -''' " 39, Consideringthe fact definitevalue qua potential never be achieved in the n ighted by the Apext Court in Mirza that it would be vky difficultto provide a and in view of the fact that exactnesscan atters ol assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying tlie Government'sminimum prices tor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there fu'e no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired :ellantsof VillagePochanpurare ti-eatedat s, i.e., appellants of Village Bhai-flial and while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquired ands determinedhi' the ReferenceCourt:in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providmgahigherbuildingpotentialityinthe acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accoidingly,these appeals ai*e partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverind above the marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in mattersi|:rtainingto VillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appeals of iands differentlyand so, app par with their counter-parts Village Bijwasan. However, l No. .1.1.9^/2008&corinocledAppealsofVillageBharthal tA.A'pp. Mo. ?.91/:'010.&connecledAppealsof VillageBiiwasan lA..A,pp, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpu the appellants of Village indicated above..Thus, the three villagesin questioni . . ST Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent market value of the acquiredlands of these determined@?16,50,000/- the Category "A' land and @^14.69,600/-per b^te for the Catego^'B' lands in question, V-i.' \-i-i

¶41On the aforesaid ei siatutorybenefitsas per the ihancement in the compensation awarded, Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported ia Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, interestonthe enhancedcompensationshall be paid. TlieseappellantswcDuIdbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42Ihe above captionedippealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof -h direction to the Registry to remit the , depositedby eitherside with the Registrar concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets in the aloresaid terms wi compensationamount,if an^ Gcnci-al of this Court, to the be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb [.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectndAppealsof VillageBharth: l.A.,App.No. 294/2010&connucledAppualsof VillageBijwasan W.App. No. 111/2010&connectodAppeal.sof VillagePochanp .jr/ JUDGE f 0-^ / {Ti'f' + % IN THE HIGH,COURT OF DELHI.AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008' RANBIR SliARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Tewathia, Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Nfgiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.R^,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.NfegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentinappealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhaishu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mi-.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus ^ UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through; Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navli:i Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayYerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalShaimaand [• K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. Mr. Some CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.0L2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an applicatioi)for seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'' January,2012. Counsel appearing fot the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 if-decision ot 6^'^ Januaiy, aloresaid judgment the rat JANUARY 12, 2012 ].^kb LA.App.No.1195/2008 •3 V" ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounse^for the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the 2012 IS that m paragraph no: 40 of the te ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the ippellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedtl:at the referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 11J5/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsfpe canied outforthwith. In viewot the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof "(SUNILGAUR) .JUDGE Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % • - • Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 + LA.APP. 975/2008 MAHENDER SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash,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.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhoslaand Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocatesfor respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.SanjayPathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni, Mr.MukeshKumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR