Narender Singh & Anr v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma V5. Union of India & Anr.- (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DEUHI AT NEW DELHI Q % ' ' , • ' ' ' \ " • ! &sserved_onj^JVoy^^^^ Pronouncedon: JanimiyJh^TpJ? (GRID-A) I • LA.APP.1195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) • ! RANBIRSHARJMA Appellant 1hrough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.AnandYadavand Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Ad\-ooate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.PI.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roufand Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari. Advocates. Mr.Pankai Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadavVMr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKh'osla and Mi-.DhananJayMchlawat, Advocates Mr.fi.S.Rauteia,Advocate Mr;I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep l hakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.lLS.RaiUela,(rVdvocatesTor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) versus L'NIONOl'INDIA& ANR. Respondents 1hrough; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAd\x)catewilb Mr-Saqjcr, Pathak,,Mr.lVJohitrao.Vadhas-and Ms-Naviinyvvaii-(. Ms.K.KaunnidiKiran. Advocatesforl.AC/UOI Mr.AJayVerma,Ms.BecnashawSoni. Mr.Mukcsh I^'-umar,Mr S.K,Sethi,Mr.Pav^anMathiirJVlr.Kuna) Sharma, AdvQCaxefor DDA APP.4{2/2008 & CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections).f.A,APP.'452/;'008- • APP.453./2il)08;•LA.APP.688/2008& CM.No.5990/20]o' (Cross-Obieclions)- CM.No.433/20()9(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.7yi/2008& L!\l.iNo.^.0,.^009 (Cross-Oi^ection;;); !.A.APP.768/200R; l.A.APP.770/2008; i.A.App. K'O. liy.V.'^OO.S&GornccledAppnalscifVillagi;Bharl.h:.il iA.Ai:.p. No. /94/?.0aeS, corinuciedAppealsofVillage:IBIiwai.in IA.App, ^lo. l,ll/?n.lO&cpnnraodAppealsof ViilaBtl-ochanoLir • • Pago ! of :?.9 kV LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/20()9 , (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009^Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/200,8; 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.901/200.8; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No709/2009 (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. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA,APP.1031/2008& CM..No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); L.A.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008; j..A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.l048/2008& ClVt.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,1050/2008; Ly\.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.752/2()ll (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM..No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0biections); 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-Objections);LA.APP.1086,'2008 & CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objection^}UA.APP44l^mOOS^^ 619/2009 •(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/200^|_APP.1094/2008;J:aA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.1103/2008 &CM.No.441/20097C?ossT)l5)ecnMs^ & CM,No:3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1109/2008; LA,APP.l 110/2008 & CN4,No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);. LA;.APP,1111/2008; LA.APP,1112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,.A."PP,11 13/2008 & CM.No,3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; LA.APP.1116/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008; l.A.APP.l126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.IMo.550/2009(Cross-Objections); .LA.APP.1]30/2008; LA.APP.1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(C'Iross-Obiections'i: LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008& CM.No;7442/2009(Cross-Objections);

1..A.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008t'Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l140/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.1157./2008;LA'APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; L.A.APP.1161/2008;^LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cro.ss-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.1171,/2008;LA.APP.1172/2008; LA.APP.1173/2008; l.A,-APP,1175/2008;LA,APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.1179/2008;LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections),'

1..A.APP.1184/2008;LA.APP.1185/2008; LA.APP.1186/2008& CM..No.7013,'2009 l,'\.App,No. :i 195/7.008& connncted Appealsof VillagR Bharthal LA App. No. ?.91/?.010£( connGCtedAppealsofVillageBijvvasjn lA.App.No. .Ill/;?ni0 & conneclGcJAppealsofVillagePochanour" l^age 2 or 23 (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008 LA.APP,] 193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP.l 197/2008 LA.APP.l198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009fQ-oss-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008, LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008^. CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP.1276/2008;L;A.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; ' LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 .& CM,No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objcctions);

1.A.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.224./2009; (Cross-Objections); L.A.APP.249/2009; l.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.5I1/2009; LA./VPP.572/2009; l.A.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 13 7/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA. APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 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.APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP. 508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.AP?.447..'2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.A.PP.4 91/2009; LA./VPP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; •L/\'.APP.5 13/2009; LA.APP,45/2010; LA,APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP.l]77/2008;LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 LA.APP. 13 9/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/200' (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.223/2009 CM.No.7206/200< LA.APP.246/2009 L A, APP.3 05/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA, APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA,APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.l 176/2008 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the l.and AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B)'. ' . . Reserved on: December OS. 201J Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE.-BIJWASAN). . l.^l.tybNLJLRKUJyiAR .....Appellant Through: .Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. iMo .119.'i/;'.00S& connectedAppnalsofVillage Bharthal IA.App, No. 294/2.010& connuctcdAppcaLsofVillageBijwasan LA.App No; 1.11/ZOlO& 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 UOl & ANR LA.APP. !:,A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & i Respondents rhrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and lVIs;Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/L,AC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.-Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,71 & 72 in appealTiled by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP.-347/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 28672010 LA.APP.'80/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP.,223/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. •LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. ^APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. .APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. .APP. 588/2010 LA.A??. •APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. •APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. .APP. 764/2010 . .LA.APP. .APP. 364/2010 .APP.|)9/2010 & objections) LA T A LA •• L..A LA l.A L,A •LA LA 'LA C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-5L'2010

55.'20]0 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/20 JO 722/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 aielatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND • . • • LA.App. No. .1195/'2008& connc'ctcdAppealsofVillage BharthnI LA.App. No. 291.//010& conncclndAppealsofVillageBijwasan !J\.App.IMo. IIV-MIO.& connecledAppealsofVillagePochanpur . l-agt! 4 of 29 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronouncedon: January 06^ 701? LA.APP.'!11/2010(VILLAGE POCHA SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through; Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36to 40, 44 to49, 59, 63 to71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.Nd..61,64, 65/2011) ' Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant ill R-22) versus lJ^^10N OF INDIA & ANR-Through: Re;spondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,andMs.NavlinSwain.,Advocates forUOI/LAC ' Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Setll,Advocates forDDA. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP l.A.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA:APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 111/2010 . 160/2010 . 228/2010 .254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/201]' . 154/2010 . 165/2010 .248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 ' 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 • 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011' 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA-.APP. LA.APP. , 155,/2010 209/2010 '.249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 .397/2010 -433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 .784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 • LA.APP ' LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. (.A.APP, .LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. iLA.APP. ^LA.APP. 'LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. La.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 'LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 156/2010 215/2010: 250/2010 •270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/201 ]• 119/2011

429./2011 522/2011 535/201 1 •I.A.App, Mp. 1.1.95/2008&conneclodAppealsof VillageBharthal [.A.App.I\)g. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App iMg 111/2010&conneclRdAppealsof VlllaBePochanpur. % (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) O RD E R

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the 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 NotificationNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/IA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

2.. Acquisitionprocesslor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Noffication of 13^'' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, pertainmg to vast tract of agricultural hind in one compact block . comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. , Agriculturaljand of the appellants herein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby tlie Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e.. Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting eompensation%?13.82 laes per acre for ISiock 'A' (level field with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(Mathoutop soil). ' .

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired l-A.App. Mo. 1195/2008&connectedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. ?.9'1/20.10S connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpiir ."age 6 of 29 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enlianced compensation (® ?15.00 lacs per acre for the • appellants'.acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to ViUage Pochanpur have been dismissed.

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

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

(2010) 1 sec 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs.. Fs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors,, (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Si and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira 1

(D) through LRs ra. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCyiLE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India & Anr,, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana & Ors,, 2010(9) SeALE 41; ^hakas vs. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SeALi'i 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs.. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead), thro.ugh LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No, 4143/2003' titled as Smt, Indu Khorana ra. Gram Sabka & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land AcquisUion Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, {2Q\];) 1 see 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, lA.App. No.:ll9!)/;^008 & connoctnd Appeals of VillageBharlhai i.A.App. No, 7.94/;'.010&• connuctcidAppeaLsof Village Bijwasan lA.App. No in/20.1.0& connectedAppealsofVillagePocharpur ' • • . Pago 7of29 Giijamt ami Ann, AIR 2001 ,SC 2424; Hmyana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175;MisaiSingh& Ors. Vs.. UnionofIndia&Ann, 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union ofIndia and Anr,, (2009) 15 SCC ,769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RmteshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammaiandAnr ra. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Ann, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesk ,, Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238-Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors, Fs, Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20.11) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh 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 of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union of India, decided on .. io.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram. vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and SkuleRam vs. UnionofIndia, 2010 (] 70) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aloresaiddecisions,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 Avhich must be adjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe hinitedto the near iiiturealone.

¶7It was pointed out by'Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewan-Jodhpurbroad gage raflvvay line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharfhal,dividmg it into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayhne is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. No. 1135/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBhaaha! IA.App, No. 2?1/Z010&connGclGdAppealsofVillage[Jljwasan I.A.App.No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bliarat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting frOm NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) I South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned counsel for the appellants that northern, part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Ail-port in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of 'Phase-IL, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/m&pto highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for die 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 acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16"' October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notificationof24'''''October,1994.

¶9.It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. lA.App. No. li9S/;^.008& connnclcidAppealsof Village Bharthal l.A.App..No.?.94/?.010& connc!cU!dAppealsof VillageBijv/asan !./\.Ap_p.(lio. 111/^01.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur . Page9of 23 Sedd,& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyde,-{ibml&Ora, (1995) : 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Vdho Dass vs. StateofHarymta.S Ors., 20J0(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the. acquired land must be adjudged keepingmview 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 putthe land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthereis no buiJdingpotentiaHty.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learnedcounsel for the appellantsuponthe seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highUght that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and . merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplarscannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued becauseof any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition la.d down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu'Dessaivs. StateofGoa mdAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplarsougl^tto be :• taken as representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therelbre, reliance placed by the • ReferenceCourtupontheminimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. H. Assessmetttofmarket value of the acquiredland was sought bv Mr.R.Godara;learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basisofthe I& . DO rates fixed by tl,e Governntent»d also on the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the Governmentfor:allotmentof alternate plots ,n the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potent,aluyof the acqun'ed land, determinationof ,ts market value i, PP Nc.uv.uoaconnectedAppals"fVillagePochartpur .• • sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Poehanpur and VillageSamalldiaor alternativelyonthe basis of the L& DOrates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited ofLA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds:- • ' -a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the AM>ard.No.26/2002-2003 dated z5. ]0.2002 , being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of' 2006. (Referred to in cross-examiriationof appellant'dated

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates,of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 yvas issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter•dated

71.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance'with the Imv laid down by various decisionsincludingin one ofthe m.ore recent decisions of the •Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversusfahsildar. 2010(3)'SCC 661. ' d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining• the valueofthe landunder.acquisition. e) iJoes not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the\ irial Court whereasas per the law esta.blish.edby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Jlon'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sa.l.e Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin l.A,App, No, 119V2008&connectedAppealsof Village Bharthal LA.App.^No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpui- ^ case the average sale price is\ lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessni vs. State of God, 2010(13) SCO 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 Suprem,e Court - ' including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) see 444. As a consequence, the impugned,judgment •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 ^ fram.edon 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification,of 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 m.a.sterplan. and Notifications of Governmentfor land use change show that in future land, can be• subjected to residential, co'rnmercial and other pennissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectof the 74"' am.endmen.t' of the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act wa.s amended and the area where the land is situated, was • • deemeda municipalarea and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Panchayat elections were held in. the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid, down in AIR Suprem.e Court 3467, Ranvir Singh andAnr vj'. Union of India and. refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on/theprice that a willing purchaser wouldpay for, the.subjeel land.

i) Ignored the fad that Respondent 'No. 2 'had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connccled Appealsof VillageBhartha! LA.App. No. 291/2010& connocledAppealsofVillage Bijwa.san L/\,App. No. 111/2010&connoctpdAppealsof VlllagH Pochanpur , V Quctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about X2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land although the land' y\>as acquiredfor development purposes of l>yvarka Phase JI. It 'is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16:10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityof the said land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(2010) 3see, 661 it was held that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in imm.ediate or in near future needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of Uuldings on the lands acquired and the said land-being occupied bv the • buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportionofthe land-isbeingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture.''

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal, and others of LA. App. No. .j47/2009,the iactual details have been providedwith a praj/erthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargLimehtsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethatthe effectof LA./ipp. No. .1195/2008&connected.AppealsofVillage Bharthal •l.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan lA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaksof Villagepochanpur i urbanizationoftiie lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDaitatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 223^-'Kapi!Mehra (Major General) rfc Ors, Vs. Union of India & Anr, .176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-, Detcimihed Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableEind oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ot 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,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence ioi-determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also-requiredto be considered and the sale instancesrelied upon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 .(62) DRJ 227, Satpat& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423:; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Ann,

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SusMl Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor such shaip increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App,|\Jo. 1195/2008& connected/AppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. ra/2010& connectedAppealscrVillagePochanpur ' '' • Page-Wof 29 and,thepurchaseras no prudentperson having Imowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale mstance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DetcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis'Courtin SusMlKumar(supra)andRaj Singh. (supra).

¶15So jar as potentialityof the land is concerncd,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for tlie Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing tlie minimumindicativeprice of the agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I Aplil, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has'been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted • . tliatthereis no scopefor fiutherenhancementfi-om the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition'Collectorand so, the impugned •judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancemern by the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto 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 uponcloseperusalofthe impugnedjudgmem,tlie evidenceon 1ecordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis that the true marketvalue ofdie comparablelandis thepricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling 1-A..APP.Nc^ 119S/2008&connectedAppealsOf VillageBhnrthal |.A.app.No. 234/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwa.,an IA.App. No. l.;,.L/^C10a ronnertcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur . . • Pagn:i5ofZ9 /

(V) seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho-Bass vs. State of Haryasm & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation;

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

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants of buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor huildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of - buildingplots or developedresidential extensions in, thevicinityor closeproximityofthe 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 availableto the occupiersof buildings,if builton the acquired land; and • , , • •.

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor'the acquiredland itself being in \dem.and for huilding purposes, to specify a few. " , . ; , ' - I

¶181he potentialityofland for the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large number of factors, r\)r the said purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for IA,App. No. 1.19r)/2b08&conriGctRdAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App,No-Z94p.010& connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasah' LA,App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppnaLsofVillage'Pochanpur ' PapelBof?')' >1 . , which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it'has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscould not be a groundto discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

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

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behall 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 similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationonthe groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden o;t 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 Valliyammal(Supra),while takingnote ofthe feet that the acquired land was: situated in^, close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc.,'hadheld that deduction of 40% towards development charges'was improper. The .pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnianiMolu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under LA.App. iMo. 11S5/200S& cDnnoctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal ' ' • , IA.App. No. 294/2010& connGclndAppealsofVillagcBijwasan l-A.App.No. .1.1.1/201.0&connnciedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' ' p-ipM7f2y qX "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, M'ill be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow handM>id.th, , the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of t-wo 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 -accountjof under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequentlyaveraging y cannot be resorted, to. "

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note of the clinching observations pertainingto determinationof fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as . follows ''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 point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a. willing vendee and. - the willing vendor which, could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- •"Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of la.ndfor developm.en.tin the area, and the dem.andfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is a.ny prospect of developmentin the ' vicinity, increase in prices 'would be slow, steady and. gradual, withoutanysuddenspurts orjumps. ' IA.App. No. 1195/''008& connectedAppRalsofVillageBharllial ' • i.A.App, No. 294/2.010& connected.AppealsofVillage Bijwa.?an tA.App. No. in/20ia Si connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' m On the other hand, in urban or semi-urBan areas, where the developmentis faster, where the demandfor land, is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is-0 a much higher rate, as , comparedto rural areas. In somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any Buyers, the prices stagna.ted for years or rose marginallyat a nominalrate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus, a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urba.n areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only aroundhalfof it, that is about5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceof clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor applyinga-higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determiningthe market value by providing appropriate escalation.over the proved.marketvalue-ofnearby lands in previous years (as evidencedby sale transactionsor'acquisition),where there is no evidence ofany contem.poraneoussale transactions or acquisitions'ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofaur tofive years.'Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a., neighbouring land. What may be d reliablestandard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe m.a.rket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the: annual increase method with reference to a sale or lA.App. Mo. 1195/200!? & connficlndAppaalsofVillage Bhartha! . , • ;.A,ApD, IMo. 294/ZOlO& connnctedAppealsofVillageEijwasan LA.App. No, 111/2010& connectedAppeal;of Village Pocnanp'ir m acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may'havem.anypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the rate' of annual • increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurts inpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofinci-ease. " I . 24, This Comlis mind&lofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Hmyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computalion of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- • "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationa.ladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with ' referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification." ^5. Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon-by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSymmiSatsang,Beas had puichased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied,from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)M'hich are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand'RadhaSwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 BiswassituatedmVillagePochanpurrellectthe-correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds IVK.App.vNo.1.195/2008&ConnectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No, 2S'V20,10&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan W.App. No. .1:1.1/2030&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur• ' ' • m (hx.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW^l/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)has not been biought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purciiaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited h-om him as to why he had agreed to pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami 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. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplar'ofVillage Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be tj-eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. ^7. 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'foragriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidcnt,.thatthe acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having" knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ' ' LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur . • ri5 m market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (•Jix.PW-]/4 to Itx.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court. • ' • •

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

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

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddy and Ors. V, Land Acquisition\Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., ]995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the • • determinationof the marketvalue of the acqvdredlandwith ' buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetched by-sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood 1A.App. No. .U95/2008& connected.AppealsofVillage Bharthal j.A.App.No, 294/M.1.0& connccledAppealsofVillage Bijwasan J.A.App. No. 1..1.1/20.1.0& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur PiiRe 22 of 29 -or M'hetherithe the determinationofthe marketvahieofthe 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, Keliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becom.es available, then what could,be done is to find out the ma.rketvalue of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section.4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when, there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there yvas no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even if formed in the acquired, land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof'Tateof land charged by • the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights,-theApex Court in Lai Chand. (Supia),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment latcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand(Supra),acoordinate:Benchof this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) ^ and Sushil Kumar (Supra), has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of \ tA.App.Wo,ll,qi)/2008&conncclcdAppp.alsof Village!Bhartha! 1-A.App.No. &connccffidAppealsof VillageBijwasan lAApij.No. 11.1/MlO&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur m the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has lightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the land in questionwhiletakinginto coiisiderationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-L It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respohdent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per amium is taken from the year 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,sfillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris morethan the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. j3. Aloresaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe 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 beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a rchablestandard,ifthe gap;isofonly ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the • gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-nis ofsixteenyearsand therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate • LA.App. (Mo. n!«/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal 1-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan l-A.App. No. 111/2.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned, senior counsel for the lespondent/cross-objector'had urged that the Reference Court; has ,gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a cooidinatebench of this Court in SushiiKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushiiKumar (Supra),1 find that 10%'increaseon account ofhigher potentialit}''of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been-grantedand so, by relying upon Sushii'Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt - .@12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum.In this view of the mattei,the cross-objectionsolthe 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/'o,per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not. 3(36. Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland • pertaining to the-Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to he an agriculturalland by.virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be Liiban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ol the acquuedland had changedbut that by itselfis not .sufficientto . Mo. :195/2008& connectedAppenisofVillage Bharth;ii ' •. i.A.App. (Mo, 25.M/2010&, connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan J-A.App, No. ].1..1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageI'ochanpur l-age 25 of 29 m presume that the acquired lands hid gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectoftliero beingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands " i «*«» «>» Mle exeinplarsof Xadha Swami Satsang.Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosetliatUie sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to^higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhandson•other sale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe saleexemplarsofRadha Swa,m Sauang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof , . VillageSamalldta(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands ; • and so the comiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of V, Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be sufficient "8^ compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of th'e aforc-referreddictum of the Apex C-ourt in Hao'ana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),un.iformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded lor the lands acquired under the same Notification in tlie light of the ' , minimum price hxed by the Governmentfor the agriculmralland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higlter potentiality.Taking note of the ftct that there is agap between what AAfp. Mo. l.U/20.10&connectfidApp.aisofVillagePochanpti, • • • Cage 26 of 29 would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in Jm Singh (Supra)as well as inSushilKumar(Supra)and I find no reason to take a differentview than'theone which had been taken b)/ coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra). • . I'

¶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 ofthe acquiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidence'thatthe potentialand the situation oi' the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the-aspectofhigherpotenfialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide,roadstarting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side,toDwarkaSub-City,PartI and Part11, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and'there being Farm Flouses in the vicinity ol: the acquired lands has somehow missed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt, hi the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof Dv/arkaPhasc-L What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account ofthe higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the lA.App. No. 119S/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhal l7\.App. IMo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan lA.App. No; 1.11/2010& connectedAppealsofVillaBG Poclianpur sculed legal position aptly highliglitedby the Apext Court in Mirza NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1SCC 238, in thesewords:-once a conclusion is 'reachedthat there was the , possibiluyofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up ' buddingsmthe immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion wou d be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a bill dmg potentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality." [ -

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea . definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is . bioddpiobdbihtiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treattliem Witl, equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum pnees for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired sdiileientlyand so, appellantsof Village,Pochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e.. appellants of Village Bhaithal and VillageBijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in SmhU • Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby theReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providtagahigherbuildingpotentialiiy'inthe acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are .partlyallowed to the extent of • awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalue assessedby the' RefeienceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bhaithaland Village , Biiwasait,Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith • the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof , ; " conncctcdAppealsof Village o the appellants of Village Pochanpur'arealso allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perJ:)jhjfor the Category'A' land and @ 4,69,600/-per for the Cate^ir;'B' ands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siaiutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin (he judgment reported in, Sunder i>s. VOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi which periodofdelayno.intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid, -fhcseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof m the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eithersidewiththe Registrar Cjcneial ol this Court,to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. ' January 06, 2012 pkb U.App, No. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBhartha! •A.App. No. IMPS)W&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan A.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppeal,';of VillagePochanpur GAURJi ,, r). C- '"i !% Pol / ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI t LA.APP. 1195/2008 ' j . RAl^IRSmJRMA Appellant j Through: Mr.B.S-Maan,Mr.AinitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin ; Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S. tomar. ' Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates f versus ' • UNION OF RTOIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI / Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, • Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shanna and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: •: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAtJR ' ' ' ' , 0:RDER '%

12.01.2012 • C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'' January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants haye accepted the notice .A.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 ir ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointedout by the respondentin the decision of 6 January, 2012 is :that in paragraph no: 40 of the aioiesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcornpensationassessedis 'perbigha', whucas It should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No: 1195/2008be, read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe carried:out forthwith. hi viewoftheaforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof. ' JANUARY 12,,2012 plcb LA.App.No.1195/2008 c JUBGE Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ^ ' V- ' I Reservedon: Novemberf 2011 Pronounced on: Januarv-06. 2012 + LA.APP. 1094/2008 NARENDERSINGH&ANR | Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.WmitMaan,Mr.JaiPralcash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Veima, MrJitin 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.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR