Bharat Singh v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & A nr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb ;UNIL GAUR) JUDGE Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. % \ (GRID-y\) I / LA.APP. 1195/2008 Reserved on: November IS. 201 / •Pronounced on: January 06, 20J2 :tial) RANBJRSHARN4A ' Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA''erma,Mr..TitmTewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rolitas, Advocate. ! , ^ Mr.Raghuvinder Godara,;Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S'.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roiitand Mr.B.K.fioutray, Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.ParikajVivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,M.r.DdepakKhosla, Mr.Samit IChosIa and MiNDhananjayMehlaAvat,Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate, .. Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate'. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appeals filed by UOI) versus b'NION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Throuah; Mr.Sai^ayPoddar,-SeniorAdA'ocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak;Mr.Mohitrao.Jadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain' Ms.K.KaumudiKiran,Advocatesfor !,AC/UGI Mr.Ajay Verma,Ms.BecnashawSoni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr.S.K.Sethi,M:.PaAvanMathur, IVIr.Kunal Sharmiu.AdvoCfiiefor DDA • l.A.APP.4iz;2008& CM.Np,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections).LA.APP.452/'^008' , ]A.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& CM.No.5990/2010'(Cross-Objec1ions)! I j.A.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);'LA.APP.701/2008& I CM.No.530/2009 (Cross-OWecbons); L\.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; lA.App!No. liy:)/?.oa8&connccledAppealsof VillagirBharlh:.il l.•^.Aop.'No. /94/:J010&. conner'.edAppMLsofVillage;Bliw;iijri iA.Appj i\!j). i.i:i./?010&connraedAppealsof Villagel-bchanpur Page I of 29 # lb 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.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; •LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 . & CM.Nb.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009. (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.l 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections) LA.APIM032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008 LA.APP. 1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008 LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008 LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & • CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM:.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0bjection3); LA.APP. 1060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.-623/2009(Cross-Objections); •l.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); . LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objj^GtioTS?);LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2M^eross-ebj€ctitnK.). CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections)VaA.APP.1093/2008i^:CAPP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA;APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA,APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP. 1112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; LA.APP.l 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); l.A.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1159/2008;LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.II66/2008 LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008 LA.APP.l 170/2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA.APP.1173/2008 LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; LA.APP.1179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008 LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections) l,A.APP,n84/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP. 1186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 IA.App. No. ]195/7.008£( connfictedAppealsofVillage Bharthal , ' . LA.App, No. 294/2010Si connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan •' LA.App. No. 1,1.1/2010&connecleclAppealsofVillagGPochanour' ' ' ' Page2of29 % w i(Q-oss.Objcclions); LA.APP. 11,90/2008.; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008 jLA.APP.l198/20Q8& CM.No.'6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008 .LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008 ;LA.APP.1212/20O8; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Ci-oss-Objections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APiM275/2008;LA.APP.r276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.ApP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; ' LA.APP.i35/2009 LA. APP. 136/2009; l.A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APiP;197/2009; LA.APP.224,/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APi\249/2009; l.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.137/2009 L A. APP.il 43/2009 LA.APP. 187/2009 LA.APP. 198/2009 LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 &, CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.2]1/2009; LA.APP.'220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP;241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APPU66/2009; LA.APPH90/2009; LA.APPk95/2009;, LA.APP:508/2009; LA.APP,512/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP;i3/201]; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP, 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.609/2009; LA.APPi'S13/2009; LA.APP,45/2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008; 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.3 05/2009 LA. APP.45 8/2009 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 .A.APP.l177/2008;LA.APP.:!201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 (Relatiiig to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B7LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issuediiinder Section 4 of:the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AAvard No. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRJD-B) Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Prohomced on: January 06, 20J2 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE.BIJWASAN)., • DHvender KUMAR Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh iy\.Ap|3.iMo. H95/Z008 & connectedAppealsof Village Bliarlhal l-A.App. No, 294/2010&' connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LAIAp'ip No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki.and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.,Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41.-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus iUOl & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate Avith^ Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K;Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forDDA. LA. APP; 1.1/2010 • LA.APl^. 52/2010 LA.APP;53/2010 : LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP;^57/2010 ' LA.APP..]00/201:0 LA.APP:221/2010 • LA.APP.242/2010 LA.APP:246/2010 LA.APP,282/2010 LA.APP.283/2010 :• LA.API^.287/2010 LA.APP, 288/2010 LA.APP, 295/2010 LA,APP; 296/2010 LA,APP, 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA,A.PP, 350/2010 LA.APPi 351,/2010 ; LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP! 356/2010 ' LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APR 742/2010. • , LA.APP.360/2010 LA.APP,361/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP: 406/2010 • LA.APP, 409/2010 LA.APP, 438/2010 ; LA.APPi.723/2010 LA.APP.724/2010 LA.APP;.727/2010 LA.APP.729/2010 •; LA.APP; 750/2010 LA.APP.759/2010 ' LA.APP; 964/2010 LA.APP,286/2010 ' LA.APP; 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/20.10 , LA.APPi75/2010& C.M.No.,964/2011(Ci LA.APPI 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP,59/2010 ' LA.APP.70/2010 LA.APP: 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP; 285/2010 LA,APP. 289/2010 LA,APP, 294/2010 LA,APP, 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP: 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP, 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 :LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 • LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 , LA.APP,.588/2010 LA,APP. 722/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 •LA,APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732./20I0 LA.APP. 764/2010 ,LA.APP. 828./2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP,.-99/2010 & •Qss-objections) I a^elatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&:B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisifionAct, 1894 .& Award No ; 28/2002-20Q3,VillageBijAvasan,Delhi) • , '• •• f AND • • IA.V\pp.No. .119.'-,/aOOS&connectedAppealsofVillagG Bharthal - ' W.App, No, 29'!//.010&conntictedAppealsofViliagGBijwasan I.A,App,:!Mo.1,1J/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ; • • . • • . l-agG 4 of 29 % (Gmo-c) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 hA.A??. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHA.TRAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma,Mr.S.K.SoIankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29,30, 33, 36to 40 44 to49, 59, 63 to71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advoceitefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Throiigh: Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavIinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. LA, AFP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.AI'P. 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 9] 9/2010 65/2011 '120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 '260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 i.A.App. No. 3..,,95/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharlhal -.App.No. 294/2010&connectfidAppealsof VillageBijwasan -A.App No 111/2010&connficledAppealsof VillasoPochanpur. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. la;app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.A.PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 61/2011 117/2011 129/201] 521/2011 526/201] 591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP. . 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 . 412/2010 . 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 53572011 Page S of 29 % (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi)

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought: by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoUficationNo.K10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'i:)warkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j. Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, : I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward , No.30/2p02-2003granting compensation@?^13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and ®?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil). i

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheiracquired I LA.App. No. 119S/2008&conneclGdAppeals.ofVillageBharthal. , LA.App. IMo. 29'1/2010&connncledAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. :11/2010&connRctedAppealsofVillapePochanpur I • • • . agricultural lands, appellants had sought.reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A', and @ ?'r3.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpiir have been dismissed.

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

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors ra. State ofHaryana and Ann,

(2010) 1 sec 444; Sangunthala

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

(D) through LRs vs. The Special I^and Acquisition Offi-cer, Jaigaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai w. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; . Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Ann, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of 'Haryana &. Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas w. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCALH 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 1I see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors w. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No/ 4143/2003'titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer Anr vs. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 S(xC 714; ThakarsihhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, lA.App, No. .1.19,'j/?008& conn(!c',fidAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App. No. 7.94/2010&• connnclcidAppeal.';ofVlllagR Bijwasan lA.App. No .i:.1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • ' ' • Page7of 23 It Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana Slate Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC US', RisalSingh& Ors. Fs. UnionofIndia& Ann, 2006 (89) DRJ 527.(DB);LaiChmtdvs. Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPaiel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valiiyamma!andAnr w. SpecialTehsiidar (LandAcquisition)and Anr,, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Trntdon vs, Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, '(2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; • Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20]]) DLT 3,61; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as Sura.tSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpa! & Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

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

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be In-st understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over aperiodof time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewan-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the iGl Airport,New Delhi LA.App. l\io. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBhariha! IA.App. No. 2«1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageIJiiwasan lA.App. No. 111/20.1,0&connectedAppealsof VillafsePochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-ll 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 Plouses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samall<ha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the westernside of VillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawn to the aks sizras/ma.^.to highlightthat the boundary ; of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the i appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has ^ illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of : Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three I villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland of VillageBharthal ' had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24'" October,1994. .9. It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned I ,!'' counselfor the appellants-that the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been I wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by, relying upon P. 1A.App. No, .1.195/Z008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal !A.App.,No.29/1/2010& connecledAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. .u:/20.10&cdnneclodAppealsof VillagePochanpur • Page9of 29 It Kedd,&On. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Bass vs. StateofHaryana&Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that tlie potentialof the acquired land must be adjudged keepmg in view the developmentin the area overaperiodof time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthereis no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight lhat the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs aid merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basi,s to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. StateofGoa '""'Ann.(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of tire latrd which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since tlie sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumratea/cjrcleratesfor detemiiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous. 1!. Assessmentofmarketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson tlre basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by Uic Government and also on the basis of pre-determmed rates fixed by the Governmernfor'allotmentof alternate , .n the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand poientiahtyof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is S:S;Z: ^^arthal • • ''I.AADD No nr "PPeaisofVillagGBharlhal dA App Z VillageBijwasan •• • PP connmedAppealsofVillafiGPochanpu' " i •• n sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DetermihedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

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

23.]0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) • i b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland in ; the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was ; issued. I c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the laM> laid I down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more 1ecent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. ^ . d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be Consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. \ e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recent ; case ^of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land I AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale . Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin iL^.App,No. 1.195/2008&conriGCtodAppoal.sof VillageUharlhul ' ^lA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village[Jijwa,san LA.App. No. .1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof Village,Pochanpur case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai v^. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per : acre in Block A and 13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rejused: to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g)\ Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notificationof the Municipal Corporation 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. • The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential commercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe /f' 'am.endinent of the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was I amendedand the area where the land is situated, was • • deemeda 'municipalarea a-nd the municipalCounsellor _ 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 v^. Union of India and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpayfor the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent'No. 2 'had also LA.App, No. 1195/2008& connnctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l-A.App. No. 291/?.C10& connucledAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectfidAppealsof VillagePochanpur auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is M'hollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the ,; . pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchangeof the use ofthe land although the land M>as acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased, to be ^ agriculturaland came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. ^ I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial i potentialityof the said land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar I

(2010) 3see 661 it was heldthat thepurposefor I which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While : determining value of the property; acquired the fact ; ; ^'^'^^^herthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto he used I for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future : needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired, and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands M'ere acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portionoj the land, is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingputin betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."•

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal.and others of LA. App. No. J47/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsol this appeal be treated at par v\dth the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.Ana.ndYadav, Advocatethat the effectof !.A.App. No. .1195/2008&connectGdAppealsof VillageBharthal I.A,App. No, 294/2010&cohnectGdAppealsof Village Bljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&cohnectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • Pa e13 urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Dattatray TMrthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapi!Mehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs, Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Detcrmined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableandoughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthat thoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale -Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence for determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the. land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property,proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsinJai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs'. Union of India ami Anr,,

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Smhil Kumar vs. Union (}f India, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for siich sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App, No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010& connectedAppeaLsofVillage Bliwasan LA.ApiD. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VlllaBcPochanpur and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale mstance of Radha Swaini Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO ratcs/Pre-DetermmedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SiishilKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).. 16, So far as potentialityof the land is concerncd,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/eross-objoctorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minmtummdicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1 Apiil, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, if is submitted thatthereis no scopefor fiutherenlianoementfrom the priceofacquired ^lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the RelcrcnccCourtwhiletalcinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% ^ per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while granting ; appreciation @10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-- objectionsto the aforesaidextent. ;

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the •• sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthetruemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is thepricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling ^ connectedAppeals^ • IA ^ AppealsofVillagGBijwasan -• pp. No. .U.I/20J.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur I seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dekling:with the questionofpotentialvalue ofthe acquiredland, what r has to be considered'in assessing the market value thereof, stands • : reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & I Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words •; ;•' "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or ' the town or village which had beeia growing in size I because of its commercial, industrial, educational, i ' • ^'eligiousor any other kind of importance or because ' of its explosivepopulation; ' ;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandfor puttingup the buildings, be they residential, . commercial or industrial, as the case may be; , ;

(lii) .possibilityofobtainingwater andelectricsupplyfDr i ; occupants ofbuildingsto beput upon that land; \

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using I , the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of 'buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin thevicinityor closeproximity'ofthe acquired land;

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

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to • specify afew. " ,18. The potentialityofland for the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for , buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. For the said puipose,,the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. No. .1.195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.App. No. 7..'M/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ' •' : LA.App.iyo..111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur , ' ' Page16 of29 which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Av'mash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscould not be a ground to discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special Land AcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

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

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

¶21Apex Court in Vailiyamma! (Supra),while takingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under;- • LA.App. No. 11.55/2008& connoctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal IA.App. Mo. 294/?,010& conncctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan lA.App. No. 1.1.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur } I "The legal position is that even where there are several I exemplars' with reference to similar 'lands, usually the i. highest of the exemplars^;which is a bona fide transaction, : will be considered. Where ho\^ever there are several sales \ ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, : the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of tM'o sales are markedly, different, it can only lead to an } inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. " 22;, II would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determinationof fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chistdha Fakira PaiU (Supra), which are as . follows > •1 ' "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale '• transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactionsproximate to the i point of acquisition of the lands -situated in the I neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between'a willing vendee and . the willing vendor which could he expected to reflect the true value, as agreed'bet'ween reasonable prudent persons : acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value."

¶23Principles to determine the market value'of the acquired lands as \ ;rciteratedby the Apex Court in-Oil andNaturalGas Corporation- .'fOiVG'Q(Supra), are as under;- "J^rimarily, the increase in land prices depends on four : factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin siirrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the . • vicinity, increase in prices' would' be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurts orjumps: l>\.App..No.1195/2008 &'connected Appealsof VillageBharllial I.A.App.No. 294/2010 & connGCted.Appealsof VillaRG Bijwasan l.A.App No. in/20.10& connectedAppealsofVlllaBe Pochanpur .• ' • Pagel8of29 \ •) 'l i On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the j developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high I and where there is construction activity all around, the j' escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In somepockets in big cities, due I to rapid development and high demand for land, the j escalations-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or ; more per year, during 'the nineties. On the other extreme, in I remote rural areas where there was no chance of any •I development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% I' per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban ; areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural '• areas. Therefore if the increase • in market value in .: urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. •' This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the I : nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific \ evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are i. : special reasonsfor applying a higher rate of increase, or i any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in , prices, then the increase to be appliedwoulddependupon \ •, the same. ; Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determiningthe • m.arketvalue by providing appropriate escalation over the '. • • proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as ^ evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there , is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or I acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonably safe where the_ r-elied-on-sale : ' transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour to-fiveyears. Beyond that itmay be unsafe, even if it. relates to a neighbouring ; land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a j • -• few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard i ' where the gap is larger. For, example,for determiningthe . . market value of a land acquired-in 1992,. adopting the annual increase method with, 'reference to a sale or I t'V-App.No. 1195/2008gi conncctedAppealsofVillageBh'artha! . • ' . I lA-App. No. 294/2010& connoctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan W.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • '" ' acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the Vate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apart fi'-om. the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurtsinpricesajfectingthe verystandard. \• ofincrease. "

¶24'l^hisCourtis mind&lofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding I computaLion of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under;- "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different •k, siluationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, ' forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with : reference to previous status or situation should he avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶15Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquiied land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price . which varied from ^52 lacs to ^62 lacs peracre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW^-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10>which are basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respcctofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 • Biswas situatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the-mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds lA.App, No. 1.195/2008& connected.AppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. Mo. 294/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan . . • I.A.App. No. 1:11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.Itwas dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,i.^:lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas ! disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village ^ ,v • Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been ^ broughtout as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh price for _ these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swaini Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25"' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011•and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh w. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamuipurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.T^s, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page21of29 'So market price of the land m question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Hx.PW-1/4 to Iix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the • 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 relatingto Sale Deed of 27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-l/lI) was situated on the National liighway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ji-x.PW-l/l 1) vendor had sold not only the land but the stioicturethereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fctched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in qucsLion.

¶29l.eft with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Prc-DeterminedRates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30' Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram. Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under ''12. I/owever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvalue of the acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialityM'ith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood l.A.App. Mo. .1.19;;/Z008& connected.Appealsof Village Bharlhal LA.App. No. 29'!/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan I.A.App.No. .1..1.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland, with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe : publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section : 4(1) ofthe Act Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes a.vailable, then what could be done is to find out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of : publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto actualuse to M'hich it wasputand increaseits value by • ^ percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th ofthe market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving increasedvaluefor such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidence,of sales of build.mgplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there yvas no immediate dem.a.nd, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Charni e (uSupra),held that it is not safe or advisableto' rely upon the allotment ratos/Pre-DetermmedRates in determining.the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! a,and(Supra),aeoordinateBench of this Court in JaiSingh (Supra) and SushU Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of 1A.App. No,,.l.iq;i/2008&connnctodAppealsof Village!Bharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010&connficlcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan 1-A.App.No. H.1/2010&connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur y <3^ the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be'seenMswhetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the yeai 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It Avas sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the yeai 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aloresaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincrease method in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly of afew years,ma)/ becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap between the two Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-Iiis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe • mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 11.9;j/2008& connectcidAppealsofVillageBhartha! LA.App. No. 294/2010& conncctcdAppealsofVillage BIjwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur <35 escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearb}'land ofthe previousyears.

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

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

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertainmg to the-Notifi-cafion in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24''^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ol the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto I.A.App. No. ligs/^dos&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 17\.App. No. 294/7.010&, connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 1.1.,1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' pjS f29 3V, picsiime that the acquired lands had gained potcntiahty for being consideredas developed.lands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands ni question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by tlieappellantsdisclosethat the sale ofdie saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from tire evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein pricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityof the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, tlien appellantscould have laid their hands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance ^ of Village Samalklia (Ex.PW-1/11)witliout leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(bx.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient III ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of tlie Apex Court in Haiyam State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdesei-vesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin tlie light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is agap between what IA.App. Mo. 11.95/2008&connocludAppeal!;of VillageBharthal ;l-A.App.No. 294/2010&corineclndAppealsof VillageBljwasan lA.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur •. Page 26 of 2.9 3) would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalprice has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands inJai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushilKumar (Supra)and I find no reason to take a differentview than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶381his Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question. iMndingof the ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation oi the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,Indian Oil and Bharat PetroleuiiiDepots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two porfions, and there being.FarmHouses in the vicinity of the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof this Court, on accountof aioresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof DwarkaPhase-!. What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the iy\.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l7\.App,No. 291/2010& corinecteciAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No.-11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur PapD27of?9 m settled legal position aptly higlilighted by tlie Apext Court in Mirm Nm,she,wanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsmthe immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a bur dingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Considetingtiie fact tliat it would be veiy difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformlyapplying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with dreir counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bhartlral and VillageBijvvasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Smhil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin ^ these matters on account of the aforesaid loeational advantages providingahigl.erbuildingpotentialityin ,hcacquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof .|^'.App.

1.11/20.10&connoctGdAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pafie 28 of 29 % the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^i^^rttie Category 'A' land and @?I4.69,600/-per for the Catet^'B'' ,lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, ibr which periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross,objectionsare disposedof m the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar General of this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. ' "(SUNILGAUR) JUDGE January 06, 2012 pl<b <[!• ^ '"'111'- Col fc-'-i i.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connfictodAppealsofVlllagHBharlhal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur k ='= IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI +. LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SI-IARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mi-.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitm Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate, Mi-.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.JSTegi and Mi-.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mi-.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mi'.Sanjay Pathalc, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, • Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shaniia and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. COl^AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR .ORDER % 12=01.2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correctiom). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof6"^ Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice BgTairftl.lrir^iMiUH LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 r i" % ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationlias alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicaleiTor pointedout by tlie respondentin fte decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the ' aroicsaidjudgmenttlie rate ofcompensationassessedis 'perbigha'. whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordmgly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'inparagraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/200^ be read as 'per acre'. Necessary coiTections.becajtiedout forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb t§TOILgISr) JUDGE-Page 2

% + r IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1093/2008 BHARAT SINGH Thi-ough: Reservedon: Novemberp/. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.AtulTripathi,Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR