Banwari v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.0L2012 For orderssee LA.App.No.1195/2008,titled as 'RanbirSharmaV5. Union of India & Am.'. 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. !'i> '0 ' /k iN THE HIGH. COURT OF DELiHl AT NEW DELHI ^ . Reserved on: November IS. 20}_J Pronoimced on: AQ.Ll (GRJD-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBJRSHARMA ^ • ... Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Maan;Mr;^nitfvlaajQ,Mr.JaiPrakash^Ms.Sm^ Maan,Mr'.R.SA'erm:a/Mr.JitihTewathia,'Advocates Mr.Anand:Yadayandromaf; Advocates. Mr.RohtasjAdvocate.'.-" ' Mr-RaghuyinderGodara^Xdvoctite , Mr.N.S.Negi aud Mi\H:S:Rautehi, Advocate ; Mr;S.K.Rput.and;Mt,B.'^.R6iitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocati^s.' , ;• • .'K :• • •• MnPankajyjv.eii,^A<^ : •NfeRsiesh:Yaday.Mr-.Deep.akKhosla,.Mj.SamitiOu^sIa and MfJ'3haiianjay-^chlawal,"Advocates Mr.H".S."Rauiela,"Ady6ca|e: ; Mr:r.S;Dahiya,;AdvQcata^^^^ ; Mr.Sandcep•Thakh^^^^ . Mr.Atui-Ti-jpath-i.vAav _Mi^N-."S..Negi .Mr,§.;kaHle.la,(.rVdvocatesfor irespohdisfliin appealVfi-leid'by'U')i) - • • -V versus ' ' . . . ' - ' UNION 01' INDIA& ANR.' Respondents 1hrough: Mr.SanjayPoddar,Senior.Ad\'ocate'wit.h;Mi..S-anja)- Patbak.,l^.Mohitr^o;:.Vijdhav.arid Ms.NaylinSwain, •MsX.Kaunuidi-Kirah;;AdvocatestprLAC/UO] Mr.Ajayyei;n?iuMS;.Becn Scirii.Mi\Mukcsh - .Kumar,-Mr;SX.S'eLhj;i\%:Pawiin Mathur, Mr.Kunal, Sharma, Advocare^fc-rDL)A ' •• '• •" .

1.A..A.PP..412..''2.008--&.. CM.No-,4096/2008•••'K-\i-6ss-Objeclio,ns-)., f..'\.A.PP..T52/2008; •I.A.APP.45 J.'iOO'S; LA..AP!\o8{v''2{.)08,-'..;!'i',A^;CA't;No.5.990/20)0-(Cross-()bjeelions); i.,A;AP]':(K>7/2008•&): GM^^oi^l/^OO^.XCrofs^Objeiti LA..A'PP.701/2.008& CNlNo,510/200^'..(•jCrDSS-pbjeetiOii.s): r/\.APH.7"68'2008;• f'A'APP;?70/2008, ^k/•. riy.V.';OO.SSt.c'opi-iccUfdApp(v.i;£err V!ii;igi;.8t-.;i-i.l;;ii' ' . , : ••..-Aop, No.v'MPOlL £ t'o.inuri.od.AppMl.soi Vill.-itSOSii-waion 1'\.A;-.p,iVi.i. &connociodAppniilio-r.Viila(i(:l-ocha'npiir papo i. oiZ'3 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-Objectians); 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 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.83q/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 LA.APP.901/'2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP,951/2008 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; & CM'^No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.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); LA.APIM032/2008 & CM.No.5;99/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; ].,A.APP. 1047/2008 ;LA.APP. 1048y2008& 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.l 052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.4i6/2009 (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.xNo.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.105^/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(cross~0bjections); J.A.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.1081/200S & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1084/2008&' CM.NO.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);1.A.APP.1086.'2008 & CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.r093./2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.y\PP.1103/2008 & CM.No.44l/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA:APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.l110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.1111/2008;LA.APP.1112/2008& CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1113/2008 & CM..No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.iii.5/2008; LA..A.PP.1116/2008;LA.APP.1121/2008; rA.APP.n26/2008; LA.APP. 1129/2008 & CM.No.55(J/2009 (Cross-Objections);^- LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM,No.,566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP. 11315/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17:283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP. 1157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008; LA.APP.l170/2008; LA.APP.l171,/2008; LA.APP.li72/2008;LA-.APP.l173/2008; LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP.M79/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008; LA.APP. 1182/2008; LA.APP.l 183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP. 1L86/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,829/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; CM.No.709/2009 LA.APP.974/2008 LA.APP.976/2008; l/),/\pp. No, ,1195/2008 & connncted AppeaLsof Village Bharthal LA App. IMo, 29^/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijvva.san l.A.App,No. :U.1/?.010& conncctecl Appeal.^of Village Pochanour' LA.APP.833/2008; CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Obj ecti ons); It % (Cross^Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP. 11'98/2008& ,CM.No.69:35/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objectio!ns);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009.(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008;LA.APP.1252/2008; LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.128il/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.7l 03/2009 (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; l.A.APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.,APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; I..A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.45 9/2009; I.A.APP.489/2009;- LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.S 11/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; ],A.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 14372009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 19to09; 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.22Q/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP,227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP.24i/2009; LA.APP.245/2009 LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.466/2009;- LA.APP.49q/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 1V2010; LA.APP.13/2011; LA.APP.295/2009 LA.APP.447/2009 LA.APP.480/2009 LA. APP.491/2009 LA.APP.503/2009 •LA...APP:509/200c LA.APP.513/2009 LA.APP.45/2010 i.A.APP.l 138/2008 l.A.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.23 i/2009 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 Ly\.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. 567/20 09 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 (Relating to Notification No. E.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the'Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002; Village Bharthal,-Delhi) (GRID-B) •; Reserved on: December 08. 2011 . . : " • Pronounced on: January 06. 20.12 LA.APP.294/2010 (VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). • DliVENDER KUMAR . ; ...... Appellant Through: ' .Mr.R.S.Tomm-,Mr.Virendra Singh lA.App.i\io 119.S/:'.008& connected Appeals of Village Bharlhal 1A.App. No. 294/2010 & connectfidAppealsof VillageBIjwasah l.A.App No, l.U/7.010 & connected AppeaLsof Village Pochanpur Pago 3 of 29 i. Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (m R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus • UOI & ANR LA.APP. r.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. i.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. IA..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 & Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forL)(3I/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 Sharraa, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APP. 5372010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 22L/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288,/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 • LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cr LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 5L'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, 408/201 0 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA,APP,,722./20]0 i.A.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731 /2010 LA.APi^ 732./2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP.

828./2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & oss-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the;Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,-Village Bijwasan, Delhi) : AND lA.App, No ,H'J,'j/,2008& conneclRd AppRalsof VillagG Bharth'nl lA.App, No,29'i//010 & conriKClGriAppp.alsof VillageBijwasai'i •./\.App, iMo, 'I1j/2Q10 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . l-agc 4 of 29 0/ /() (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 I ^ LA.APP. 111/2010 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, 36 to 40, 44 to 49,59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant inR-22)• versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.NavHn Swain., Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forDDA: 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. I.A.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317i'2010 396,/2010 432i'2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/20].] 554/2011 I.A.,App. No. 1195/?,008& conncctedAppe3l,sofVillageBharthal LA.Apo. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan I LA.App No III/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur.; LA.APP. LA.APP. 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. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 •249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433,/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/2011 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 J (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issuedunder Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) .HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL €;AUR ORDER %

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcicioicwith the consentof:learnedcounsel for the parties present at £}, the healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoUficatlonNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/134-17dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharlhal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for iplanneddevelopmentof 'DvtWraP/zave- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block . comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. ' '

¶3Agricultural land of thd appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., y\ward No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward • . No.30/2002-2003granting coibpensation ?13.82 lacs per acre for Block A (level field -• with top soil) and ^"12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil). ; "

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue ofthcii' acquired l/i.App.IMo. 119S/2n08& connE!ctGdAppeals.ofVillage Bharthal.; l.A.App. No. Z9'i/?.0.10& connfictsdAppealsofVillagGBijwasan ; LA.Arp. No. 111/7.010&connectedAppealsof Villap,ePochanpur! Pap,G6of29 q) 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 @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for •their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

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

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

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

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., )- 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab Ors., 2011 (9) SCAL1'{ 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) ; > 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W,P.(C) No. 4143/2003' titled as Smt Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, \2^\ 1) ~ 7 see 714; Thakarsibhai Dfvjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, lA.App. No. .ll!?;)/2008Si conncctcd Appealsor VillageSharlhfij i.A.App.No. 7.9'l/?.010 &• connected Appeals of Village Gijwasati .A.App. No in/2010& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ' • PaRO. 7ofZ9 Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2pm SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,qOlO) 11 SCC 175; MisaiSingh S: Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union I ofIndia and Am\, (2009) l'5 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas' Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patei and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Vdlliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Am-:, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Maltesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20]1) DLT 361; W.P.(C:jNo. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority &. Ann, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) II-SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil[Kumarvs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.591/2007 titied as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;.and B.huleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371. :. .

¶5On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants -^ that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to Jappreciatc its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over a period of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near iuture alone. /. It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat , Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad'^age railway line of Village Biijwasan ! passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on-theeasternside ofthe railwayline is the ICI Airport,New Delhi lj\.App.No. 113.^/2003& connectedAppealsofVillageBhariha! • IA.App. No, 2?1/?.010& connectedAppealsofVillage IJijwasan ' lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofViiiaRePochanpur; g pg J • : • . ; 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-I City Part-I and Part-II again! divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the I . • j) land of Villages .Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalldia. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned: counsel for the appellants that northern, part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and a.gain in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Villiage Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984;for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Baranoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-ll" Dwarka Sub-City. I AttentionAvas drawnto the aks\sizrasln\'A-pto highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are ' contiguous. ;

¶8It was strenuouslyurged:by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned counsel for the appellants that the Referende Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land'in the light of its location and has V illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16'"' October, i2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed irom agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and; infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notifl.cationof 24''" October, 1994,

¶9It was argued with mulch vchemence by Vlr.S.K.Pv-OUt,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave.been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama ;LA.App, No. il95/:'.008& connGctfidAppealsofVillageBharthal! ^ • !'A.Apfi..No.?.91/?.Q10& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ! I.A.App. 111/;;0:l0& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' " Page 9of23 -Tt Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been;consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Bass vs. S'iflteofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged Iceepmg mview the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannot be limited!to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot mean thatthere is no buildingpotentialitv. I

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sal(^ Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegaUydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there IS no basis to conclude^hat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per seltled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AsijamMolu Dessaivs. StateofGoa andAm,, (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representmgthe markjetprice of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale;exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe maiketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof marketv^lue of the acquired land was sought by Mi.R.Cjodara,learned counselfpr the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates hxed by the Goveniment and also on the basis of pre determined.rates fixed by the ;Governmentfor' alJotnientof alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is LA.APP. No. 1.195/2008&connoctedAppealsofVillageBharthal ^ LA.App. No. 294/?,010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' LA.App No. 113/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ; Page 10 o( 29 ) 7-^ sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and I Village Samalldiaor alternativelyon the basis,of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka :Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-I ^ Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,aippellant ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited of.LA. App. No. 295/2009has; assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds:- ; a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about th^ A^'ard'No.26/2002-2003dated

23.J0.2002 being /Jawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinatidn•of appellant dated

7.7.2007) \ b) Does not accountfor. the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates of land in ihe areafor more thai^i 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land. AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. , : c) Valuing the land on, the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the laM> laid . down by variousdecisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar. 2010(3)SCC 661. \ d) Ignores the evidence •and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the value ofthe land under acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law • established by the Hori'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakirci Patil versus Special Land Acqiusi.ti.onOfficer, Ciyil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Ilon'ble Supreme Cow\t has specificallyheld that Sale - Deedshowinghigher rfite.should,not be disregardedin l-A.App, iMo. 1195/2008& connectedAppnalsofVillageUharthal i LA.App. No. ?!M/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageliijwasan \ LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur I Pape n of 29 f . : ^ case the average sale\price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State, of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has qlso 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 vahte of the subject land while ignoring the material M-'hich indicate that the . market value of the Idfid 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 v,?. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •refused, to, return an '.actualfinding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. \ j. 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 masterplan and [Notifications of Government for - land use change show that. in. future land, can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissibleuses. It islalsopertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein. respectofthe 74''^ amendment' of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the [Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the^ land, is situated, was • deemed a m.unicipalarea 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 and Anr vj'. Union of India and refused to consider thefact that the development in the area has a direct',effect on the price that a willing purchaser would,pay for, the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. had also ' I : ' . LA.App. No, 1195/2008& conncctedAppeaLsofVillage Bharthal i LA.App. IMo. 291/?.010 & connected Appeals of Village BliWd.5an • LA,App, No, 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur! Page 12of29 . , •: < ' auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determinedauctidn rates set'by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into ciQcountthe possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land although the land M^as acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase

¶11It is • reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was change^d and these areas ceased to be agricultural, and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I - _I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityof the said.land. In Sangunthala V, Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was heldthat thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe land has got buildingpotentialityto be used • for buildingpurposes', in immediate or in near future needs to be considered, m.) The presence of a nimber 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 acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion \oj the land is being considered,as ^ house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture. " (

¶13In the brief synopsis byiVed Pal and others of LA. App. No. l)Alt2Q09,the tactual detailshai'c been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treaited at.par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvanced on behalf of the ' appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effect of !,A.App,,No..1195/2008& connficledAppealsofVillageBharthal I7\.App. No. 294/2010& connccledAppealsofVillageUijwasan i W.App. No. 111/2010&connnctpdAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur ' r : urbanizationof the lands in tiie Villages in question,i.e., the change in Icind use has been consideredin M'aheshDattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union of India &\ Anr, 176(2011) DC! 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved 'Auction Rates of the area are relevant to - determine the market value pf the acquired lands and infact the sale I instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have I been relied upon by the Reference Gourt to assess the correct market I value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adeqiiatemarketvalue for the acquired lands is ~j^ • sought in these appeals. i

¶15Arguingthe cross-objecjtionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay .Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894,\2i certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the s|ame cannot be taken as relevant evidence lor 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 purchaserand otl^er factors namely, nature, situationof the property,proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredglands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplapingrelianceupon the decisionsinJai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpat & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; £al Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 see 769; LA. APR No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price m a short period cannpt be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal^ I.A.App. No. 294/2010& connected AppealsofVillageBijvvasan i.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pago l4of29 \ and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketWouldpay such ahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the . appellants, but for special cjonsideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objectqr that adoption oi^ L& DO rates/Pre-DeterminedRates cannot be;countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai ;(supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBench ofthis Courtin SushilKumar (supra)andRajSingh (supra). ;

¶16So fai as potentialitycff the land is concerned,it was urged by Mi.SanjayIoddai, learned spnior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factored into, while fixing the minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned .. judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same desepes Lo be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. • •

¶17After consideringthe rjval submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalof;the impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon ^ iccoidand the decisionscited,'whatemergesis thai, the true marketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by v/illingpurchaserto awilling LA App. No. ll?i;/2008& conncctndAppealsofVillageBharthal • LA.App, No. 291/2010& connectcdAppealsofVillage Bijwa,san ; IA.App, No. 1.1:1/2010& connected-AppealsofVillagePochanpur seller and the best evidence Ls 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 Das's vs. State of Hasyana & Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- t "(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 importanceor because of its explosivepopulation; I i r^- (^'•) suitabilityofthe acqiiiredlandfor puttingup the buildings, be they residential, •commercial or industrial, as the case may be; !

(iii) possibilityofobtainingyvater and electricsupplyfor occupants of buildings to beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using theacquiredlandfor buildingpurpose; i

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinityor 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 m.ay become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; a.nd\

(vii) lands around the a'cquiredland or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify afew. " \

¶18The potentiality of land fcir the purpose,of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. P'or the said I purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for 1A.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharlhal l.A.App. No.294/2010 & connecled Appeals of VillageBijwasan ! ' • . LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 1 Page 16.of29 which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent I 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 compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the-;exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces!ofland were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum standsireiteratedby the Apex Court in Special. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr ra. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants is jthat 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 compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands . ^nd the acquired land. |

¶20It is a well established |proposition of lav» that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State v/ho has acquired the agricultural land for a particular'purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation . awarded is on the claimant. Fpr this proposition, the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(J^iipra)can be referredto with advantage,

¶21Apex Court in Valliyamnial (Supra), while Laking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction ' . ' of 40% towards development! charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mohi De'ssai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- I :A.App. No. 1195/200S& connccted AppcialsofVillageBharthal ! 1A.App, No. 291/2010& donnectcdAppealsofVillageBijwasan i iy\.App.No. 11.1/2010&connecicdAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' Page 17 of 2S I •/ "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the. highestof the exemplars,\whichis a.bonafide transaction, will he considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilarlandswhosepricesrange in a narrowbandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the marketprice. But where 'the values disclosedin respectof two sales are markedly[different, it can only lead, to an inferencethat they arewith referenceto dissimilarlands or that the lower value sale]is on accountof under-valuation or otherprice depressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted: to.. " \ !

¶2211 would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertainingto determinationoffair marketrate ofacquiredlands made •by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakim Patil (Supra), which are as t . follows:- ! I - "It is well settled thdf genuine and bona fide sale transactionsin respect of^the land under acquisitionor in its absencethe bonafide 'sale transactionsproximateto the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken pldpe between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which, could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between r^as'ohableprudentpersons actingin the normalmarketconditionsare the real basis to determine the market value."

¶23Principlesto determinethe,marketvalue of ihe acquiredlands as, reiteratedby the Apex Court in; Oil andNaturalGas Corporation-Lid. I . • . fOTVGQ (Supra),are as under:-i I I • ' "Primarily, the increase]in land prices depends on four factors - situationof tM land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilitydj landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is anyi prospectof developmentin the vicinity, increase in prihes would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps. lA.App, No. 3,195/2008&connnctedAppealsof VillageBharlhal lA.App, No. 291/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App..No. iai/2'Oiaa connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur V I I / On the other hand, in ui\ban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, inhere the demand for land is high and where there is construction, activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural ared^. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid, development \and high demand for land, the escalations-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreper year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose margihally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is j thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in jmarket value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urhan/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increfises in rural areas yvouldat best be only aroimd half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to iricrease in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence delating to the actual increase in prices, then the increas'^ to be applied would depend upon the same. \ Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value byproviding appropriate escalation over the proved.market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisition^ ofcomparajjle lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the^ relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to-five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, ieven if it relates tc a., neighbouring land. What may be a rejiable standard if ihe gap is only a few years, may become luisafe and unreliable standard, where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the m.arket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or l:A.App. No. ll;):>/2008& connficlndAppialsofVillageBhnrtha| '..A.'Apo.No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Eijwasan; b'',.App. No. 11.1/2010& connected Appeals of Village Poctianpyr I acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the couf^e of years, the 'rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom, the • likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiods.ofstagnationin pi ices OT suddenspurtsippricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase. " j ! : 24. This Courtis mindfulof^he dictumofthe ApexCourtinHaiyana StateImiustria!Development'Corporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting I comparativesales methods;Wliatwas saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC ! (Supra) is as under:- i "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, ' sav for farming of a ;residential..layout, courts have som.etim.es felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided and a uniform,rate ofcoinpensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification." IS. Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around I acquiicd land of Village,Bharthal,, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionaie not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of 'Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale i' , Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., Radha SwamiSatsangBeas had puichased the agricultural|land in Village Pochanpur at a price which variedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Djjeds(l.ix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactb|l0ckofland,measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe con-ectmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin qucstio|nis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds W.App. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. Mo. 234/20.10&. connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan ' . . l-A.App. No. :l11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' • ' •' A ^ I . . 5^ - ^ (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)jindicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs I to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars—Sale Deeds (Ex.;PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was; dependentupon the natureand situationof I 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.exemplarscannot be treated as I , ' disclosingrepresentativeprice for the'acquiredlands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds :(Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaseij/vendeeof these agricultural land has not I been got examined by the appellants. Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been i I elicited Irom him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purdhasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'' March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as ' I Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011•and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj\ Singh vs. Union of India, decided on I I

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for thd acquired lands.

¶27In the instantmatters, jthoughthe land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to th;eir acquisition, but it has come in evidence I that the acquired lands were hieing used for agricultural purpose till their . acquisition. Thus, it becomes! evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1I95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010& conncctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasari l.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagoPochanpu.'- Page 21 of 2!) marketprice ofthe land in questionwouldpay such ahigh price unless and until suchpurchaseis meantfor specialconsiderationand so, in the considered,opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds (Rx.PW-1/4 to Bx.PW-1/10)ihave been rightly discarded by the i Reference Court. ;

¶28So far as the sale exemplarof Village Samalldia(bx.PW-1/11) reliedupon by the appellantsis;concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof ?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 (Bx.PW-1/11)vendorhad sold:iotonlythe landbut the structurethereon includingtube well, boring,fitljing,fixture,lane, by-lane,etc.,therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar i cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in i question. i • ' •

¶29Left with no sale exemp|arsdisclosingrealisticpriceof similarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whetheradoptionof L& DO o:ircularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DeterminedRates for the jalternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determinethe true; market value of ihe acquired lands in question. I

30.• Parametersgoverningfixation of marketvalue of acquiredlands I highlightedby ApexCourtin ili,s decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyam! -Ors. V, Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadandOrs\ 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "/2. tlowever, in either\pfthe saidcases whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwith huildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in awelldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood I LA.App.No. .1.135/2008&connecledAppHalsof VillageBharthal; LA.App. No-. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillaeeBljwasan ] ..|-.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpurl r^- or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land, with buildingpotentiality with reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots ;in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedhy the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the'parties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhayefetchedifsoldon ihe date ofthe publication of the preliminary notification under Section '^(V ofthe Act. Further,iyhereno evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done',is to find out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which ii\ was putand increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the-degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage, increase,to be given shall not exceed l/5th -if the market value of the landfound\out according to its actual user since resort to the meth'pd of giving increasedvalue for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate dem.and, as such, for buildingplots even if formed in the acquired land. " i

¶31In view ofthe difficultie^in adoptionofrate ofland charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand I (Supra), held that it is not safe|or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in: determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand (Supra), a coordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra)' has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of 1A.App. N()..119!)/?-008& conncclndAppealsofVillagu Eharthal ' LA.App, No.291/20.1.0& conncctnd Appeals of Village Bijwasa.n ' LA.App. No. 113/2010St connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur | Page 23 of29 A '• > I the undevelopedacquired lanids. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe Di:)Arates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-Determined R;ates for alternate allotments for fixing the I market value of the acquired agriculturallands.in question. I I

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whether progressiveincrease j method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the \ land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationtiv..; earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBhaijthaland othervillagesfor developmentof I Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Fodder, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundecjrate of 10% per annum is taken from the I year 1984 till the year 20!00, i.e., for the period intervening the-Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentiofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectciris morethanthe aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. ' ;

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chakd (Supra), cautioningthe Courts t'p adopt I progressiveincrease methodjin assessmentof tlie market value o! the acquiredland'onlywhen the:gap is of 4-5 years md beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates! to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is-larger.In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two'Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhase-I and Dwaika Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears aiid therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the :market value by providing appropriate . No. n9S/Z008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l.A.App LA.App. No. Z94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan 7a f I.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoclnanpur Zt ot I • • escalation over the market value of the nearby laliiof the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, j learned' senior counsel . for the respondent/cross-objectorh^d urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12%; per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Cojart in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted I escalation @ 10% per annum. Alter having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired; land over and above the market value determined by the Reference;Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) :escalation granted by the Reference Court I @ 12% per annum cannot belreducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objectionsof the respondent are dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi.'by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteria for determiningthe markei value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. 1^' April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or ! ' not. ; [

¶36Adoption of Govei-nm|ent'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the-Notificaticin in question has been assailed by the ' learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquired land 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 that vide aforesaid Notification of the vear 1994 the land I use ofthe acquiredland had c^ngedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App. No. ]19.')/2dGS& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthnl lA.App. No. 2!M/?.010&, connectedAppealsofVillageBiiwasati f.A.App. No. ]U/2010&connectRdAppealsof Villagei'oGhanfjur tf Y i presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands;. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere beingany developmentin and aroundthe acquired],ands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges froiji the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder|Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, die acquired lands were; put to agriculturaJ Mse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe Aacquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirihandson othersale instancesin the'area I mquestion.But, indeedappellejutscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalklia(Ex.PW-:i/n)without'leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand pobntialityofthe sale exemplarso[Radha Swarm Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand tlie sale exemplarof , VillageSamalldia(Bx.PW-1/11^are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof tJie acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/jl) cannot'be treated to be sufficient •> ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances.Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum ofthe Apex Court in Haryana State,IndustrialDevehpmentCorporation (US/DC)(Supra),unrformrate cifcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under thi same Notificationin the light of the mmimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agricultnrariandin Delhi, which generally factorsIin the rise of price due to higher ' . potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is agap between what IA.A,op. No. 11M/2008&connoctHdAppealsof VillageBharthal i ' LA.App, No, 2.94/2010&connflctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lV\.App. No. l.U/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpui I• • ' • Page 26 of 2.9 ; would be expected to be the |maiicet growth and what the market had actually grown, Government'si minuTium agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra). I )

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in I the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural ( lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. I'inding of the Reference Cour^:in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the t evidence on record. But I find|that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport; Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and; of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a IjOO meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part 11, dividing the' acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityof the acquiredlands|hassomehowmissed the attentionof the-I ReferenceCourt. In the consicjleredopinionof this Court, on accountof aforesaid locational advantages, the acqiiired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands jas assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the iVi.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A.App, No. 294/2010 & cormecled Appeals of VillageBijvyasan' LA.App. No; 111/2010 & connected Appesl."; of Village Pochanpur i ' • i X settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mima NaiiskerwanKhan vs. Collecipr,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- I "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its market value takinginto accoimithe increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentidlity." \

¶39Consideringthe fa^ th^t it would be very difficultto provide a definitevalue qua potential,a^id in view of the feet that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matljers of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem I with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are| no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treated at • . par with their counter-parts,ie., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Smhil Kumar (Supra),1am inclinedtb grant 10% increaseover and above the I marketvalueofthe acquiredlaijdsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin I these matters on account of the aioresaid locational advantages _ I '• providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question. I

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe market value assessedby the RcfercnccCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village BjJwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appeals of LA.App, No. 1.15^/2008&cormnclcdAppealsof VillageBharthal i l-.A.App.No. ?,9'1/;'010& conneclodAppealsofVillage Bijwasan • 1 lA.App No. 1.11/20K)& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ! ; I the appellants of Village Poqhanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Ihus, the mailketvalue of the acqiuredlands of these . , , . . . I ' three villagesni questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^bi-glmfor the Category 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per bigha for the Category 'B' lands in question. I i

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin I the judgment reported in Suiider vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are I granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis a delay in filingthe appeal, .ioi which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldjbeentitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof I in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the t compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar I General of this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. i January 06, 2012 pkb .jr c- ^ • I . fol ' i4.App. No. 1195/2008& conneclndAppealsofVillageBharthal ! LA.App. No, 2!M/?.010&. conncctedAppealsofVlilagcBijwasan ' l-A.App. No. 11.1/7.010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Pago 29 of29 ; HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 | , RANBIRSI-IARMA | Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan:Mr.AmitMaan,Mi-.JaiPrakash, .Ms.SmitaMa^ Mr.R.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia, Adyocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas,Aidvocate. Mr.RaghuviniierGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S."NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mi-.S.K.kout,|Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negipd Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentiniappealsfiledby UOI) -•r Mr.Sudhanshii Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Shaijma,Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout; Advocates % versus ; UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. i Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPdthalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVenna,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, • Mi-.BanlceyfiihariSharma,Mr.KunalShannaand Mr.Somer KiSeth, Advocates for DDA. I .CORAM: • I HON'BLE MRc JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR I ORDER •

12.01L2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). Hiis is an applicationfOr seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'' January,2012. Counsel appearingfor tlie appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 "A I oftlie application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfdr the appellants. The typographicalerrqr pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'" January. 2oifl is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'perbigha', whereas it should be 'per f^cre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthat(jhereferenceto 'perbigha'mparagraph no: 40 of LA.App.No:1195/fi008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe cari'ied.outforth.with. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb TSUNIL GAUR). ..A.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

/>s * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November '. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 -i LA. APP. 1115/2008 BANWARI Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.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 Tlirough: 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