Hawa Singh & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb . IN THE HIuI;11 COURT OF DEIJEII AT NEW DELHII Reserved on. November 18, 20.11 9±

(GRII)-A) LA.APP.1 195/2008 (VIL G E-BHA RTHAL) RANBIR SHARMi\ . .....Appellant ihrouah: Mr. B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit .Maari, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, \4r.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Annd Yadav and Ms.Ariita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rolias, Advocate. Mr. Raghuvi nder G odara, Advocate Mr.N..Negi andMr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S..RouI and I\4r,B.K,Routray, Mr.M.A.zarn Ansari. Advoctes Nlr.Pan'kai Vivek, Advocate MrRajsh Yada, Mr.i)eepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr[]I)hanai.ijay M.ehlawat, Advocates Mr..H . SL R.aue!a, A dv Mr.l.S..i)ahiya. Advocate Mr. Sandeen Thakhiir. Advocate Mr.Atul 1 'ripithi, Ad ocate. .Mr.N.S.Negi and MrI{..S.Ra.uiela (.i\dvocates I( )t respon(eni. in appeals filed by 1-101) versus . LNJON OF' INDIA & ANE. Respcidcms 'I hrouah: Mr.Sanav Pddav. Senior Advocate wi i Pathak Mr L'Lhitia tdh lnd \/I J to ' itt Ms K i<auiiudi Klra ri,ua'c f r.A 'Uu! Mr.Aja' Veriia, .MsBeenashaw Soni. MrMukcsh JK.L1lnar, Nir S .1<. Sethi, i\4r.Pwan IViathur. Mr. K unal Sharina Advocate im' [)l.)/\ .A.APP4 12/008 &. CM.Na40/2.p() Cross-Objections). LA.APP. 152/20O): LA..\PP453,2c08 LA.APP.688/2008 / CM.No.5990/20J 0 (ross ()bjcci ions); CM.N.433,'2oY; CrIs-Ohitio1s): I .A.APP70 I /20(18 & C I N I 0,flOO° (Cios Ot U 1' 76 ' OP \ I P /70/21 '00 .A..Ap. No ITOON & connected Appeols of Villige Bho-1 hot A.Ap. No. 194/70Jc & coriilOciCd Appeik Di ViIIa t3tiwiii A.AtI,, o.. 11:070:10 & i:onnncied Appeos o\/iiiogo onpiir . 0 t' I. S LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.o.425/2009 (Cross-i hjections); I.A.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.61 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.582/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); • LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objctions); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.93 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.05/2008 LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.8 13/2008 & CM.No. 1 795/2009 (Cross-Obljections); LAAPP.8 14/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 • (Cross-Objections); LA.APPL8 18/2008; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.AP11 829/2008; LA.APPJ830/2008; LA.A11P.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; L.A.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.92/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901J2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Crossjections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP975i'2008; LA.App.976/2oog LA.APP.78/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross- ]ections);LA.APP.993!20O8;LA.APP. I 02912008& CM.No. 1 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1031/2008 & CM,No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); 1 A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.1'11o.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 046/2008; 1A.APP. I 047/2008;LA.APP. 1048/2008& CM.No.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objecl:ions); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.o.4201'2009 (Cros-Objectiôn); LA.APP. 1050/2008; LA.APP. 1 051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Qbjections);LA.APP. 1 052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.NL4I 6/2009 (Cross-Obections);LA.AiP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & CM No.752/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No. 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(Cross-Ohjeetions); LA.APP. 1 060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & • CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.AP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); I ..A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM.No.462!2009(Cross-Objections): .LA.APP. I 084/2008& CM.N. 1 7302/2008 (Cross-Objections); T.A.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (CrossObjections): LA.APP. I 087/2008& CM.No.6 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APPII 093/2008; A.APP. 1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; LA.APP. 11 03/2008 & CM.N.44 1/2009 (Cross-Objeclions):JA.APP. 11 08/008 & (IM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A] 1 PP.1 109/2008: LAAPP.1 110/2008 & CM.No.3 828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. • LA.APP.] 111/2008; LA.APP.1 112/2008 & C1'vl.No.383 1/2009 (Cross-Ob ections): LA APP. 1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1151 12008; i..A.APP. Fl 16/2008; LA.APP. 1 121/2008: IA.APP. 1 126/2008; LA.APP. 1129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Ob)ect ions); I A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.1 131/2008 & CM.No.5-66/2009 (Cross-Obiections. :,A.APP. 1133/2008; LA,APP. 1135/2008 & • CM.N0.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); I A.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.N .1 7283/2008 tCross-Objetions); LA.APP. 1140/2008; LA APP 1156/2008 1 APP 11 57i '008 A L APP 1 58i2008 & CM No 774'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.f 159/2008; LA.APP.I 16112008; LA.APP.1. 1 66/2008; LA.APP. 11 67/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1168/2008; LA.APP. 11701/2008; LA.APP.1 ] 71/2008; LA.APP. 117212008; LA.APP. 1173/2018; LA.APP. 11 75/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP. 1179/2008; L.A.APP. 1181/2008;

1...A.APP. 1182/2008; LA.APP ii $3/2008& CM.No,6933!2009 (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APP. U 84/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.APP. I 86/2008& CM.No.701 3/209 A,App. No 195/2008 P4 sonocicted Appeals of Village I a dh a LA Ape. No. 29/1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bi 'asic LA.App. No. Li 1/2010 & connoctoa Appeals of Village P 1/110W I'age 2 0129 / • n . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. Ii 90/2008 LA.APP. 1191/2008; 1.A,APP. 1192/2008; LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 194/2008; LA.APP,1 195/2008; LA.APP. 1 197/2008; LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.N.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.AP1. 1211/2008; LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP. 121 3/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objetions); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1241/2008& CM.No.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008; 1,A.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; LA.APP. 1280/2008; I.A.APP. 281112008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008; LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP 33/2009; 1,A.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CMJ1Jo.746/201 1 .. (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.*.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.741/2009; LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.9 /2009 & CJVLNo.953/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP.1091/2009: LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.1 35/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA. APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009;, I A.APP .140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009:

1.A.APP.i90/2009; T.A.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA,APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.20 1/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.2 103/2009; LA APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2 10/2009 & CM.No.970/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA..APP.2 11/2009; 1,A.APP220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; L.A.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APPI24I /2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.249/2009; .LA.APP.257/2009; I.A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009;

1.,A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2t109; L.A.APP.447,/2009; itA,APP,458/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APPJ466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.48 1/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APPJ49O/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APi 493/2009; 1,A.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LAAPP.506/2009; LA.APP.5 07/2009; LA.APP 508/2009 -, 1A.A11P.509/2009: LA..Ai?P.5 10/2009; 1,A.APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP51 2/2009:.; LA.APP.5 13/2009: LA .APP.567/2009; LA.APP.572,'2009; LA.AP 15/2010; LA.APP45/201 0; LA.APP.48i'201 0; A APP 404'2010 I A APP 13'201 1 i A '\PP l l38'2008 LA APP I 17( '008

1.A.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP. 201/2008; I A.APP.23 10009 (Relating to Notification N. F. 1 0(30)/96/L& B/LA/i 3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the 1.,and Acquisitioi Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.202, Village Bhartha Delhi)

(GRII)-B) Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Lpiii7,i

¶201I LA.APP. 294/2010 (vILLA(;E.- BJIJWASAN). . I )EVEN.PL.R KUMAR . . . . . . .. Appellant Througi: Mr.R..S .'.[onr, Mr.Vireridra Singh I A./'.pp. No 1195/1 1003 & connecied Appeals of Village '.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3 ~ hartlial asari I.A.App NO. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pqchanpu LA.APP. 51/201() LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 701/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 3451/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 1 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 3 58/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 J_,A.APP 4081201 .0 LAAPP. 722/2010 LAA.PP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 & n fl/ / Advocates Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.. K. Routray. Advocates for appellant (in R2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UO1 & ANR Tb LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LAAPP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 1_.,A.A.P1. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP.• 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LAAPP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 . LA.APP 246/2010 LA..APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 .LA.APP. 295/2010 I.A.APP. 296/2010 LAAPP. 313/2010 I.A.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 I A.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2.010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 760/2010 I. .AAPP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA..APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.A1P. 406/201.0 •LA.APP. 407/2.010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LAAPP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 I.AAPP. 725/2010 IA.APP. 727i'2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP, 750/2010 LA.APP. 59/20.10 LA.APP. '764/2010 1,A.A1P. 964/2010 LA.APP. H8612010 LAAPP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 L.A.APP. 99/2010 LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M,No. 94/201 1 (Cioss-objections) Respondents Mr.Sanj'ay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kurnar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for U OI/L.AC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.]3.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendrd Singh, Advocate in R-68, '71 & 72 I.n appeal filed by UOI Mr..Bankey Bihar S.harma, 1\'lr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 & Award No. 28i'2.002-2003,Viflage Bijwasn, Delhi) AND . I.A,App. No 1195/2008 8 connected Appeals of Village BhatnaI lI.Apo. Nc. 22010 & connected 1\ppede of Village Rijwsan A.App. No. 1 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochnpur Pige 4 of 29 (GRiD-C) Reser'Ied on. Deceij?O]j Pronounced on. Jan uarjQJO12 LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAE POCHANPUR) SE1-IAJ RAM AND ORS. ..... Appellants Through 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.R.ajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant inR-22) versus UNION OF JNI)IA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr,Mohitrao Jadhav, and 1\4s.Navlin Swain. Advocat.s for UOI/LAC M r.B a nkev B ihari Sharma, Mr. Kunal Sharma and Mr. Sorner 1K. Seth, Advocates for I)DA. LA.APP. 111/2010 LA'.APP. 160/2010 LA..APP. 228/2010 [A.APP. 254/2010 LA.APP 292/2010 LA.APP. 307/201 0 LA.APP .395/2010 I.A.APP. 420/2010 LA.APP: 466/2010 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010 LA.APP. 919/2010 LA.APP. 65/2011 LA,APP. .120/2011 LA..APP. 476/2011 LJ\.APP. 523/2011 LA.APP. 536/2011 LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.APP. $65/2010 LA.APP. 48/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.APP. 93/2010 LA.APP. 17/2010 LA.APP. 96/2O1() LA.APP. 43212010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 39/2010 LA.A1P. d62/2010 LA.APP. 168/2010 LA.APP. 11052/20 I () LA.A1P. 116/201 1 LA.APP. 121/201 I LA.A1P. t/20i /201 I LA;APP. I LA.APP. 54/20i1 LA,APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. , 209/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 LA.APP 261/2010 LA.i-\PP. 305/2010 LA.APP. 392/2010 LA.APP. 397/2010 LA.APP. 433/2010 LA.APP. 577/2010 LA .APP./640/20 10 LA.APP. 741/2010 LA.A:PP'. 784/201 0 LA.APP. 61/2011 LA,A.PP. 117/2011 LA..APP. 129/2011 T..A.APP. 52 11201 1 LA. APP. 526/2011 LA.APP. 591/2011 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP. 215/2010 LA.APP. 250/2010 LA.APP. 270/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 LA.APP. 39320I0 LA.APP. 412/2010 LA.APP. 434/201 0 LA.APP. 63,5/2010 LA.APP. 6571/2010 LA.APP. 758/2010 !..;A.APP. 9181/2010 LA.APP. 64/201 1 LA.APP. 119/2011 LA.A1P. 42 0/2011 LA.APP, 522/2011 LA.APP. 535/2011 L/\.App. No. 3.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhartial L.AApp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan .'A./\pp No 1.1112010 & connected Appeals of 'JiIlap,e Pocharpur (Relating to Notificatioii No. F.10(30)96-L& B/1,A/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Sction 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.122002, Village Poch.anpr, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICI SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012 Since the grounds which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Noililcation No.F. 10309-L& 13/LA.11341 7 dated 13.12.2000, relaling to geographically contiuous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. Acquisition process r planned development of Dwarka Phase-1/' in I)elhi, commenced with the issuance of NotifIcation of 13 December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to vast tract o agricultural land in one compaét block comprising of thirteen Revnue Etates including villages in question, i.e., Bhai-thaJ, Bijwasan and Pochatipur. Agricultura.l land of he appellants herein in the afi.'resaid three villages stood acquired by tC Respol-,dems vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-203; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting ompensation ,. 13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field with to1) soil) and @. 12.32 lacs per acre 1ir I.3iock '13' (without top soil). . . I)issatisfied with the ssessment of market value of their cquited No. 1195/20O8 & connected Appealsof Village Bharthal ls\,pp. No. 29'J/201O & connected Appedis of Village ijwe4n .A.App. No .ii/2oiO & cor.nected Appeals of Village Pocharpur Page 6 of, 29 % agricultural lands, appe1lats had sought reference under Section 18 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced cmpensation

15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land i Block 'A' and i3.36 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, furher enhanement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages 1harthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, vherea appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate o' Rupees Thirty lac.s per acre by relying upon • the precedents in the slij of decisions in Executive Engineer, ICarnataka housing Boa Ors, (20 11) 2 SCC 246;

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh

(2010) 1 SCC 444; San • Tehsildar (Land A cquisit i's. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and ani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and 4nr, and Ors i's.. State of Harpana and Anr, unth ala (Dead) through LRs, Vs. Special n) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AiR 2005 SC 3467; chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Ac quisition Officer, Jaiguon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! i's. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Runui Nand (since deceaed) thtough LRs i's. Union of India & Anr,, 2()()2 (65) I)RJ 1 (DB); lid/ia Dass vs. State of 'Hurpana & Ors,. 2010(9) SCALE 41; C/u k'as i's. State of PunjaI & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dl'ai'iji A'aiI i's. State of Maliw-ashira, (2009) 11 SCC 171; Atina Singii (Dead) through LR and Ors vs. State of' Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.((,) No. 4143/2003 titled as Srnt. indu Khorana i's. Gr6rn Sabha & (irs, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MK. Raficj Saheb, (201 1) .7 SC'C 714; Thakarsibh4 Dev/ibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, tA.App. No. 1 .1t!/)008 ti connected Appeals of Village I h'arth,i LA.App. No. 7.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Gijwasan A.App. No 111/2010 & connected Appeals oiViIlage Pcharpur I/, Ga/unit and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors., Vs. Union ojindia & Anr0, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Ghand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; Genera! Manager, 011 and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammai and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and nr., AIR 2011.1 sc 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. 14iialuthad Development F4uthoritv (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mithesh Dattatrap Thirt/ikar vs. State of Maharas/itra, AIR 2009 SC 223 8; Kapil Me/ira (Major General) & Ors, Vs. Union of india & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284i'2007 titled. as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Atthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Gm Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Unio, of india, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decide I (I on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. N.59/2007 titled as Bed Rain vs. Union of India, decided on 07.06.201 1; and Bhuie.Ram s. Union of india, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maa , learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreeiat. its potential which must he adjudged keeping in viw he development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out bS' Mr.R.SJ'omar, counsel for appellants that I)eihi-Rewari.-Jodhpur bro d gage raivay line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of te railway line is the fG1 Airport, New Delhi LA.App. No. 1195/2003 & connected Appeals of Village Bhirshal l/\.pp. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijasan .A.App. No, 3.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocianpur rage 8 of 79 and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from 111-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-IT 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, 1 ijwasan and Samalidia. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village harthal was first acquired for the extension of 1(11 Airport in the yer 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum an.d the lands of Village Bharthai and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for dev&opment of I)warka Phase-i and the lands on the western sid? of Villages Bamnoli and I)hool Siras were also acquired for the deHelopment of Phase-IL, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the cks sras/rnap to highlight that the boundary oF Village Bharthal, Villagc Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are COfltiguqus. It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the Potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquied land to be agricultural in spjte of Notification of 16 Octobe, 2000 vid.e which land use of the three villages in question was changed, from agricultura to residenti.al/ commercial/industrial, etc. aid infact the eitire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in vie\i1 of the Notflcation of 2411 October, 1994. Tt was argued with 4uch vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for thc appellants tht the aibresaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Iefei-ence Court by relying upon P. 1?am I NC). I 95/2o08 & connected Appeals of Village Bhart .A..App.No. 294/2010 & connected Appeak of Village Bijwas !/\App. No. 3.11/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochar S I Reddi & Ors. vs. Lund Aqisition Officer, Hyderabad & Oi's, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has ben considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of .the acquired land must he adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of tiiiic and • the same cannot be 1imitd to •a ner futuie albne and if afier the • acquisition, if the authorities .do not put; the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no buildiig potentiality. •

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel .Ir the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight • that the sale price reflected therein varied from 52 lacs to Z62 lacs and' merely because of the sai variation, these sale exemplars cannot he thrown out as has been i11ea1ly done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conciude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advn.taes and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Co rt in .4njiini Mo/u .Dessai v. State f Goa undAnr. (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to he taken as representing the iarket price o;f the land which comes to Z57 lacs per acre and since, the sle exemplar's relied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale intances, therefore, reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the miimum rates/circle rates for detenriining the market value of the acquired and is patently erroneous. I I Assessment of rnarketvalue of the àquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsl 'for the appellants on the basis of the L& 1)0 rates fixed by the Go'ernmcnt and also on the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by tle (iovern.mOrjt for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Ieeping in view the locatioi, situation and Potentiality of the acquired lknd, determination of its market value is LA.pp, No. 1.1-95/2003 & connected Appeas of Villap,e Bharlhal LA.App. No, 294/201.0 & connected Appeal, of Village Bijwasan No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpi r Pane 10 of 29 S sought on the strength of ;ale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternat vely on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarl< a Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appelfant Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the irnugned judgment on the following grounds:- a) ignores the ackliowlecigemeni on the part of the respondent about t Award N0.2612002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petitioli No. 19012 of 2006. • (Reftrred to in crbss-examination of appellant dated

7.7.200) 6) Does not account dated 18.9.1987 a the area for more under Section 5 oj issued. (or the tici that the Public Notice versely qflcied the rates of land in i.an 15 years befoie the NotUlcation the La/Id Acquisition Act, 1894 was Valuing the land on the basis of . the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the Government of Natzonal Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by virious decisions including in one of the more recent decisions o I f the ilon'hie Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildai-, 2040(3) SCC 661. ignores the evidence and other factors which as per established law has to be cons k/ered befOre ascertain/nv the value of the lanc t/nder acquisition. • . e) Does not deal with dispciritv in vciiue of the Sale Deeds produced befOre th irial Court wiiçres as per the law established by the L1on'hie Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Pat it versus Special Land Acqutsition Officer, Civil /1 peal IVo. 5475 of 2007. file lIon 'hie Supreme (]buri has speci/ically held that Sale Deed showing highr rate shou ld not.'e disregarded in LA.App. No .1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharth,I LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasar LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochaneur S case the average scie price is lower. Fui'ther in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. Stite of Goa, 2010(73) SCC 710, the Supreme Court ha also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transaction6 should be cbnsidered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. Relied upon judment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC .No.97A/2006 to deide the maiet value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate .that the market value of theland is much hi.gher than 15 lac per acre in Block A anl 13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid d4'vn by the pIon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Harpana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a cnsequence, the impugned judgment retused to return 9n actual .tinding on the issue No. 1 framed on 2 7.2.200 7. Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide IVotiflcat ion of the Vtunicipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Viliae Dhool Siras and B ha ri hat was changed and these areas ceased7o be agricultural and caine now under the urban houndares of i)elhi Slate. The ma.sterplan and Notifcations of G)vernment for land use change chow that in fitlure land can be subjected to resclential. commercial and other permissible uses, it is also pertinent to mentlon that the appellant lead evidnce in respect of the 74111 ameiclment of the ConstitutiC1717 of India. i;.e./ 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which th1e Municifai Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a muñiciPa( area and the mun.icia.l Counsellor was elected from ti(iere. Ala Pan cha pat elections were held in the area. Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 347, RanviiF Singh cthd .Anr vs. Union of india and refused to consider the ftict that the development in the crirea has a dirct effect j,-1 the price that a. willing purchaser would pajv for the suhj?ct land. I) Ignored the fhct that J?espói-iclent No. 2 had also / LAApp. No. 1195/2008 ll connected Appeals of Village ihart LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Biiwas / auctioned similarly situated and as commercial blocks at the rate of abo it Z2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. .1) The valuation of te subject land is even lower than the pre-determined aution rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly siivatd land. k Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Dwarka Phase H. it is reiterated that the and use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was ch4ged and these areas ceased to he agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of.Delhi State. I) ignored Nolificatio1fis dated 16. 10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they cfrarly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(L1i); (2010) 3 8CC 661 ii was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact • whether the land has got building potehtiality to he used ftr building purpoes in immediate or in near future • needs to be cons ideiced. in) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said lqnd being occupied by the buildings are to bc trated as house sites. The lancl were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portin of the land is being considered as house site, the adjining lan. have the potential of being put in better use as hous;sires in the near future. in the brief synopsis 6y Ved. Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have been provided with a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be teated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch oappea]s. Supplementing the aforsaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by MrAnanid Yadav, Advocate that the effect of LAApp. No. .1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhartha {.AApp. No. 794/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwassn .A.App. No. 111/2020 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpi urbanization of the lands the Villages lin question, i.e., the change in V land use has been consideed in Mahesh .Dattatray Thirthkar i's. Stae of.Maharashlra, AIR 200: SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors, Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Rcservd Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market valiiie of the acquired lands and infact the sale • instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Ieference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired knds. Thus enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and ad quae market ;value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Coinsel urged that though as per Section 5 I--A of Land Acquisition Aci 184, a certified copy of the Sale I)eed is an admissible evidence but th same cannot he take.n as relevant evidence for determination of the inarket value unless and until the sarie is properly connected with t e land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the ''i1Ia.ge dc. -ate also required to he considered and the sale instances reii9l Upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquird lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while Jlacing reliance upon the decisions in Jai La! i's, Union of India, 2002 62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Unim of India, (1997). 11 SCC 423 La! (hand. vs. Union o[in&a and An;'.,

(2009)15 SCC 769; LA. A.P. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kurnw' Un/au of/nd/a, decided on26.09.201 ., it was urged that shaiip increase in price in a short period ca -inot be taken to be realistic until reasons br such sharp increase are exj1ained by producing in evidence the seller L./'pp No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhakhal A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwsan I A.App. No. 11:1.17.010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochriur Page 14 ij 29 n and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a highei pay as reflected in • the sale instance of Rad a Swami Sa1sàng Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre- • I)etermjned Rates cannol be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! Cli nd (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate l3ench of this Court in Sushi Kumar (supra) and Rj Sing/i (supra).

¶16So fa.r as potentiaity of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cros;_ objectors that the same h s already been factored into, while fixing the • minimum indicative price of the agriCultural land by the Government as on ] April, 2000 and hV granting appreciation thereon @ 120X) per annum, market value 01 the acqiired lands has been erroneously determined by the Refellence Coui -t as in Sushi! Kurnar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per +num has been granted. Thus, it is submitted • that there is no scope for ffirther enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the Reference Couii, while taking into cons idcrätion the appreciation ( 1 2% per aiThum and the same deserves to be. brought in line while granting appreciation @ 1 0% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. •

¶17Aftei- considering the rival suhiThsslons advanced by both the sides and upon close perusdi of the impugned judgineni., the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market raI ue of the comparable land is t price paid by willing purchaser to a willing LA.App. No. 119/2008 8 connected Appeals of Viflage Rharthal AApp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwsan A.App. No. 121/2010 & Connectc.Appals of VUiage Poch1inpur seller and the best evidenc dealing with the question 01 has to be considered in a reiterated by the Apex Cou Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in is the comparable sale instances. While potential value of the acquired land, what sessing the market value thereoi stands tin Udiw Dass vs. State of Haryana & iese words: EA '(i) the situation ofhe acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or vilage which had been growing in size because of its commercial, ihdustrial, educational, religzous or anyi other kind of importance or because of its explosive ]opulatlon; the suitability of the acquired land.for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; possibility of obtciining water and electric supply ftr occupants of buldmgs to be put up on that land; ('iv) absence of slatuory impediments or the like Jir using the acquired lanfor building purpose; I existence of h building plots c the vcnty or c benefits or adi health care cefr areas of the available to the acquired land,' ;hways, pu b/ic roads, layouts of developed residential extensions in )se proxunIt}' of the acquired kina' intages of educational institutions, res, or the like in the surrounding cquired land which may become )ccuplers of buildings, if built on the

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand fi' building purposes, to specij5 a few.

¶18'['he potentiality of lancf for the purpose. Of development as also for building purposes depends uon a large number of lactors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose Ibr A,Ap,, No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Viflage Rharthal t.A.App. No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViUage 0ijwasai LA,App. No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanur which the lands were events to some extent. It Avinasli (supra). While reil of compensation for acquir in Atma Singh (supra) that it to be acquired but also the subsequent ; been so observed by the Apex Court in ating the relevant factors for determination lands, it has beenheld by the Apex Court ie. exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon • on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having siitilar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, tlere is no . I justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land. It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market vaIu of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is . equally true that the burder of proving inadequacy of compensation - awarded is on the clairnant. For this proposition, the decjsion of the • Apex Court in K/ran Tandon(Supra) can be referred to with ath'antage. Ajcx Court in Valliywvnal (Supra). while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutins, hospitals, etc,, had held that deduction of 40% towards developmeit charges was improper. The pertinent • observations made by the Acx Court in Anjani Mo/u Dessui (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under: IA.App. No, I 1.05/2003 & coririeded Appeals of Village Bharth ' - i4./pp. No. 294/2010 & connected.Appeais of Vil!age Biiwesarl LtApp. No. 1,1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur • 'The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with ,ef'rence to similar iand, usually the highest of the exempars, which is a bona fide transaction, will he considered. Where however there are several sales of s/in//ar lands whoe prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereoJi can be taken, as representing the market price. But wliere the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markdly dfjrent, it can only lead to an inference .that they ai1e with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other prlce depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to[ it would he worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of •fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in CIindha Fakiru Patil (Supra), which are as foil ows : - ft is well settled that genuine and bona jide sale - transaclons in respct of the land, under acquisition or in its absence the honajIlde sale trensactions proximate to the point of acquisitin 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 hich could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreec between t-easonahie prudent persons acting in the normal narket conditions are the real basis to determine the marketvalue. Principles to deterinie the' market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Coukt in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation LuL

(ONGC) (Supra), are as er: - "Primaril)), the incr ase in land prices depends on four factors - situation oj the land, nature of development in surrounding area, ülabilit.' /' land far development in the area, and the nana' for icind in the area. in rural areas unless there is any prospect of 1evetopment in the v/c in/tv, increase in prices would he slow, steady and gradual, without any 4 en spurts or jumps. A.App. No. 11.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhartloil LA.ApP. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwsan LA.App. No. il1/20112& connected Appeals of Village Pochr,pur --A On the other hand, ir urban or sem.i-z.irban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction .:activily all around, the escalation in niarke price is al a much higher rate, as compared to rural aieas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid developme'it and high denancl Jbr land, the escalations in pricesj have touched even 30% 10 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the oiher extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and ha1'dly any, buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a sign ficant dz:fference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore ifil the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding inreases in rural cireas would at best be. on/v around half of i4 that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refirs to the general trend in the • nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specJlc evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specc evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the incrase to he applied would depend upon the same. P Normally, recourse 1*4 taken to the thode of determining the market value by proiding appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in prevlous years (u.s evidenced by sale transactions or acquitiion), where there is no evidence of anyconteinporaneous sale transactions or, acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is rea4nahiy safe where the

fransactions/acquisit1ns precedes the sub fect acquisition by only a few yeais, that is upto /0W' tofive years. Beyond that ii may be unsaf', even 1/ it relates to a. neiithouring land.. What may be a i"ciiah/e standardf the gap is on!).' a Jew years, may became unsa/ and unreiiabi standard where the gap is larèer. For example. Jr determining the markt value of a land acquired, in 1992, adoptzng the annual increase method il'ith f'e7erence to a sale or L,1.App. NC). 1, 1952008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhatha! .:A.Apo. No. 294/2010 & cOnnected Appeals of Village Biwsan A.Apo. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Fothnpur Page 190129 a F - ! Tt acquisition in 1970 oIl 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the curse of years, the irate of annual increase may itself ui'dergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurren1ce of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. This Court is mindful f the dictum of the Apex Court in Hwyana State Jndus*ial DeveIopmeit Corporation (HSID() (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting cornarative sales methods: Ahat was said by the Apex Court in HSH)C (Supra)is as under: When dffereni categories of lands (or lands with derent s/f uaiionai advaniagesj5 are acquired far the same purpose, sal. /or tbrming of a residential /ayout courts have sometImes felt that determination, of their value with reference to previous tatus or situation should be avoided and a unlform rate of compensation should he awarded for a//lands acquired undr the same notIcation." Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Blarthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied Upon by the appellants is cf Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale

i)eeds vide which religious istitution, i.e., Rcmdha Swami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultual land in' Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from T52 lacs to Z62 iacs per acre. Whether aforesaid Sale J)eeds (ll.PW-i/4 to Ex.PW-l/i 0) which are basically between one Sei of Co-owners and Radha Swami Satsan l3eas in respect of the compadt block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pohanpur reflect the correct market value of the land in the villages in quetion is the moot questionwhich is required to be answered. Evidently, dforesaid sale exern5iars, i.. Sale II)eeds LA.App. No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Vilftge llharthdl l.A.pp; No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 11112010 & connected AppeeI of Village Pochanpur H. (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/O) indicate that its price varies from Z52 lacs to T62 lacsper acre. veaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds (x.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforcsaid lands. Evidnce to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in qupstion, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclçsing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purcaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Dees (Ex.PW-l./4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has not been brought out as the purchser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by th appellants. Had the purciiaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars eeii got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high priëe for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Sa.tsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Marnurpur vide Sale I)eed executed on 25hh1 March, 2000 was also subject inatter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Sing/i vs. Union of Iidia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/201.0 titled as 1aj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforsaid decisions, the sale eempiar of Village Marnurpur was discarded ivhile holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for ~he acquired lands. .

¶27In the instant rnatteis, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their acquisition. Thus, it becones evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1195/2008 &. connected Appeak of Village Oharthal . . I.J\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Poc anpur . market price of the land in cjuestion would pay, uch a high price unless and until such purchase is mjeant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars,, i.e., Sale I)eeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/1)) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. So far as the sale exemplar of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.P.W-1/1.l) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale I)eed of 27th January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW1/1 1) was situated on the National I-ighway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-l/l 1) vendor had sod not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, pitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot he treated as a reptjesenta.tive price for the acquired lands in question.

1..eft with no sale exethplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& l)C circular rates for the developed lands and Pre1)etcrrnined Rates for tFe alternate plots by the DI).A ought to be adopted to determine the tue market value of the acquired lands in S queStion. Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands • hghlightcd by Apex Court iri its decision reported as P. Ram Recidy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hderabad Urban Development' A ut/wriry Hyderabad and Ohs., 1 995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. Ifowever, in eithr 0/the said cases whether it be the deferminatio'z of the niarket value of the acquired land with building potentiality v1ri1h reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a wellieve/oped layout in the neighborhOod I A.App, No. 1105/20013 & connected.Appeals of Vi!lage Bhartal ! :A.App. NO. 294/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasn LA/pp. NC). .111/2011) & connected Appeals of Village Pocharpur or whether it he the deerininationof the market value of the acquired land with bzilding potntialiiy with reference to the price fetched by sate of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Cotrt to find out what will be the price fttched or to be fetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of tie parties; with reference to the price which the plots could izaveftched if sold on the date of the publication of theprliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. FurtheF, where no evidenée ofprice fetched by the sales of the piths in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out tIi market value of the acquired land wi1 reference to the relevant date of publication under Seci1ion 4"1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to whicl it was put and increase its vahe by a small percentage Iciving regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascer1ained On the basis of evidence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given +all not exceed 115th of the market value of the land foumd out according to its actual user since resort to the mthod of giving increased value for such building poten1icliiy arises only when there is no evidence of sales of b4iiding plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indibating that there was no immdiate demand, as such,fr building plots even if fbrmed in the acquired land.

31.

In vici of the .difficultlies in adoption of rate of land charged by of the !)I)A afler acquiring the agricuiturai lattds, dcveloping the same, and so transferring perpetual leaseh1d rights ; the Apex Court in La! G/thnd i . I (Su i pra), held that t s not sate or advisable to rely upon the aliotment ratcs/Pre-Detcrn-jned Ratesn determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehJd lands. 1.oilowiag the dictum of Lal (7i.and (Supra), a coordinate 3enc.1i of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kuinar (Supra) has excluded the f)I)A rates qua the developed lands as being not lele -vant 1r assessi.g the market vahie of LA.App. No. 11.9 10.008 & connected Appeals of Village Ohartha LAApp. No. 294/20:10 & connected AppeaLs of Village Bijwasan LA.7\pp. No ....11/201.0 & connected Appeals of ViHage Pochane Page 23 0129 the undeveloped acquired Ilands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court / has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the I)DA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquird agricultural lands in question. Now what is requir-d to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while takiijig into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Barth.al and other villages for development of l.)warka Phase-I. It was sought to he argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Icaj-iied senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at the cornpouned rate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of . I)warka Phase-I and the instant Notification for deve1oprnet of Dwarka Phase-Il, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collekor is more than the aforesaid esca]ated price and therefore, the enhan ent granted by the Reference. Court is Linusti fled Aforesaid argument 1os not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Ghand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase methd in assessment of the market value of the acquired land' only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relats to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gapis of only ofa few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard wlere the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifkations, i.e., of i)warka Phase-I and Phase-Il is of sixteen years and therefore, it would he unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. NC). 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhrthail (A.App. No. 794/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwsan tA.App. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur escalation over the market uc of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Podda, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 1.2 per annum, which is unwaitanted as a coordinate bench of this court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation I O% per ainum. After having perused the decision in Sushi! i4iimir (Supra), I ind that lO%. increase on account of higher potentlality of the acqvird land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushil Kunwr (Suprk) escalation granted by the Reference Court 12% per annum cannot be redued to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed. Now what is to he seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural hind in i)elhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired. land and as to whether theesca1atiori of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the Iatc of fixation of the i -nininnum price for the agricultur4l land by the Government w .f. 1St April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not. ' .. Adoption of (ioverment's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notificaion in qustion has been assailed by the learned counsel for apl)e11ats becaus.ë the acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural land by Ivirtue of Notificati,cn of 24111 October, 1994 declaring agricultural lan4s in these 'three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide afkesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land use Qt the acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to I.A.App. No. I 95/2OQ & connected Appeels of ViHage Bus thir A.App. No. 29412010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan [.A.App. No I 1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l'ochnpur . P'Jfe 25 of 29 presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any deeloprn cut in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Sthsang, Beas heavily relied Hon by the appeIlnts disclose that the sale of the said.lands was for agriultura1 purpose. 37: Rather, it emerges from the evidence On record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher dernand.on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid thir haiids on other sale instances in the area in question. i3t, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) without leading any evidenc.e to establish that tile quality and Ipotentiality of the sale exrnplars of Ràdha Swami Scitsang, ]3eas in Vil age Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of \'iiiagc Smalkha (Lx. PW-l/l 1.) cannot be treatd to be sufficient -ground to grant higher compensatlon while relyIng upon the aforesaid sale, instances. Therefore, in Iic W of tile at ore-referred olictum of the Apex Court in Haryana Sta(e Industrial Development Corporation (iISJD'c (Supra), uniform rat4 of compensation deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under ihe same Notification in the light of the minimum, price fixed by the boverpnient for the agricultural land in Dcliii, which generally factos in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Iakinp note of tii ft - - - --.-- ' %, Lilal. LiltOl t 11 OIfl hP1"tic,'m-, - - - •-' b'-"I-' VY L'LslJ VV11L LJ\.Aop. No. I if .5/2008 & connect(d Appeals of Village Bhrthjl l..A.\p.p. No. 294/2010& connected Appelc of Village Bijwasan LA.App. N I o. 111120.10 & connectcd Appeals OfVillage Pochanpur would he expected to be the market growth and what the market had actia11y grown, Governmert's minimurngr.icu1tutal price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kurnar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Beich of this C'ourt in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar Supra).

¶38This Court is of the èonsidered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in I)clhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Ccurt in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being nol evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is sinilar to sale cernplars is borne out from the that the aspect of higher pOtentiality of the vicinity at the 161 Airport Indian. Oil and 'l of Railway line passing through Village 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 Sub-City, , Part 1 and Part 11, dividing the evidence on record. But I • acquired lands being in cbs I3harat Petroleum Depots a: .Bharthal and there being a from Shiv .M.urti side to Dw acquired lands in two ons, and there being Farm 1-louses in the vicinity of the acquired has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the idcredo1mion of this Court, on account of aforeaid locational advantaes, the acquired laids in question, cei1:ainl' assume higher building poteLìliaiity being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Courtt grant 1OY0 increas over and above market value of the acquired land as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildig potentiality in the aquied lands is 1.hc Ls.Ap. No. 1 195/2008 & connected APpealS of Village Bhrhal IAApp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Vlllap,e Bijwsn l.A.App. No, 115/2010 & connected Appoak of Village Pocha1pur - settled lega.l position apt1 highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan K/ian vs. Co1

(1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:-. 'When once a conc7us ion is reached that there was the possib filly of the ac4uired ldnd being used for putting up buildings in the iinindiate or near future, such cohclus ion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value lakthg into account the incease in price attributable to such building pateiktial liv"

¶39Considering the fat definite value qua potentia never be achieved in the i broad probabilities of the in with equivalence by unifo prices for the agricultural 1 the acquired lands as there lands differently and so, ap par with their Counter-part lat it would be very difficult to provide a and in view of the fact that exactness can atters of assessing fair compensation, it is ant cases, which persuades me. to treat them nly applying the Government's minimum for computing the fair market value of e no special features to treat the acquired Ilants of Village Pochanpur aretreated at i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village i3ij Wasan. ilowever, while relying Upon the decision in Sushil Kwnar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10%. inciease over and above te markel value of the acquired iands determined by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providing a higher building p tentiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these apeaJs are prtly allOwed to the extent of awarding 1 0% increase over nd above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters Pertaining to Village Bharthaj and Village .Bijwasan. While treating the apellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village 13hahal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of Lf'pp No. 1.195/7008 & connected Appeals of Viflage I3harthI 1p. No. 294120.10 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasari A : A pp. No. U. 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu . rage 23 0129 i. the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these -------------------------------- three villages n question is determined 16,5O,0OO/ per big.h4 for the Category 'A' land and @ 14,69,600/.- per biha for the Category 'B' lands in question. I 41, On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, slatutoI-\ benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 arc, granted, except for the perid where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants wuld be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the alresaid terms wih direction to the Registry to reiit the compensation amount, if an deposited by either hide with the Registrar General of this Court, to thc concerned Reference Court. I)ecree sheets be accordin]v prepared. / A4 January 06, 2012 pkb (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE - .c ,ii •-. :' ',( J'-- .L.

LA.App. No. 1.195/2008 & connected ApeaIs of Village BharthI L.App. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViHago Bijwasan LAiSpp. No. 1.1 1/2010 & connected Appels of'ViIlage Pochanpur IN THE HIGH COURT QF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Man, Mr.Arnit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohta, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.gi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S .K.ZgiandMr.H.S.Rautela, ut, Mr.B .K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S., (Advocates for respondert in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhashu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R. S .Trnar. Mr.B.D. harrna, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rbut, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanja Pathak, MtMohifrao Jadhav and Ms.Navli11 Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocate for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verrna, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Arnita Singh, Mr.Banky Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR VA ORDER .01,2012 C.M. AppL No.752/2012 (For corrcctoj. This is an applicatioi for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6" Januaiy, 2012. Counsel appearing fo r the appellants have accepted the notice IAAp.No 1195/2008 Page 1 AP of the application. Advane copy of this application has alteady been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6th January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'pr acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the 3,ppellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered tat the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 115/2008 be read a 'per acre'. Necessary cor.rectjons be, arded cut frthwjth. In view of the afo.res id, this ap.p1icäton stands disposed of. ( (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 976/2008 • HAWA SINGH & ORS. .....Appellant Through: MtB.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.Raghuviñder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.J-LS.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. • Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate . Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhanañjay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate • Mr. Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate • Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. • Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI •Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate • forDDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR