UOI & Anr v. C.Verghese

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LAA No. 69/2007. LAA No. 409/2007 & CM No. 17649/2007 LAA No. 729/2008 & CM No. 11072/2008. LAA No. 730/2008 & CM No. 11075/2008. LAA No. 734/2008. LAA No. 740/2008 & CM No. 11365/2008. LAA No. 758/2008 & CM No. 11541/2008 LAA No. 759/2008 & CM No. 11544/2008. LAA No. 765/2008 & CM No. 11663/2008. LAA No. 766/2008 & CM No. 11666/2008 LAA No. 769/2008 & CM No. 11673/2008. LAA No. 801/2008. LAA No. 815/2008. LAA No. 900/2008 & CM No. 13682/2008 LAA No. 551/2008. LAA No. 834/2008 & CM No. 13167/2007 LAA No. 835/2008 & CM No. 13170/2008. LAA No. 838/2008 & CM No. 13178/2008. LAA No. 839/2008 & CM No. 13181/2008 LAA No. 862/2008 & CM No. 13310/2008. LAA No. 865/2008 & CM No. 13325/2008. LAA No. 250/2007 & CM No. 5881/2008 LAA No. 512/2008 & CM No. 6505/2008. LAA No. 523/2008 & CM No. 6637/2008. LAA No. 529/2008 & CM No. 6818/2008 LAA No. 547/2008 & CM No. 7088/2008. LAA No. 570/2008. LAA No. 626/2008 & CM No. 8922/2008. LAA No. 665/2008 & CM No. 9691/2008. LAA No. 666/2008 & CM No. 9694/2008 LAA No. 667/2008 & CM No. 9697/2008. LAA No. 669/2008 & CM No. 9704/2008. LAA No. 702/2008 & CM No. 10214/2008 LAA No. 704/2008 &CM No. 10266/2008. LAA No. 810/2008 & CM No. 12278/2008. LAA No. 646/2008 & CM No. 9194/2008 LAA No. 391/2007 & CM No. 17273/2007. LAA No. 393/2007 & CM No. 17279/2007. LAA No. 394/2007 & CM No. 17282/2007 LAA No. 395/2007 & CM No. 17285/2007. LAA No. 1/2008 & CM No. 7/2008. LAA No. 5/2008 &CM No. 19/2008. LAA No. 8/2008 &CM No. 38/2008. LAA No. 12/2008 & CM No. 50/2008, LAA No. 13/2008 & CM No. 53/2008. LAA No. 14/2008 & CM Nos. 56/2008 &12818/2008. LAA No. 15/2008 &CM No. 59/2008 LAA No. 260/208 & CM No. 12822 & 793/2008. LAA No. 261/2008 &CM No. 800/2008. LAA No. 262/2008 &CM No. 806/2008 &13968/2008, LAA No. 263/2008 & CM No. 809/2008 LAA No. 298/2008 & CM No. 1471/2008. LAA No. 349/2008 & CM No. 2741/2008. LAA No. 375/2008 & CM No. 3533 & 13883/2008 LAA No. 376/2008 & CM No. 3537/2008. LAA No. 391/2008 & CM No. 3561/2008. LAA No. 397/2008 & CM No. 3763/2008 LAA No. 398/2008 & CM No. 3766/2008. LAA No. 402/2008 & CM No. 3774/2008. LAA No. 403/2008 & CM No. 3778/2008 LAA No. 405/2008 & CM No. 3795/2008. LAA No. 415/2008 & CM No. 5877/2008. LAA No. 416/2008 & CM No. 5900/2008 LAA No. 417/2008 & CM No. 5878/2008. LAA No. 418/2008 & CM No. 5893/2008. LAA No. 419/2008 & CM No. 5884/2008 LAA No. 420/2008 & CM No. 5885/2008. LAA No. 421/2008 & CM No. 5902 & 10005/2008. LAA No. 422/2008 & CM No. 5897/2008 LAA No. 423/2008 & CM No. 5892/2008. LAA No. 424/2008 & CM No. 5903/2008. LAA No. 439/2008 & CM No. 5890/2008 LAA No. 440/2008 &. CM No. 5901/2008. LAA No. 441/2008 & CM No. 5876/2008. LAA No. 442/2008 & CM No. 5889/2008. LAA No. 451/2008. LAA No. 459/2008. LAA No. 460/2008 LAA No. 461/2008. LAA No. 462/2008. LAA No. 463/2008 LAA No. 502/2008 & CM No. 10022-23/2008. LAA No. 503/2008. LAA No. 673/2008 &batch Page 1of 4 Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. LAA No. 504/2008. LAA No. 505/2008. LAA No. 506/2008 &. CM No. 8842-43/2008. LAA No. 507/2008. LAA No. 511/2008. LAA No. 543/2008 & CM No. 7077 & 10865/2008. LAA No. 586/2008. LAA No. 588/2008. LAA No. 591/2008. LAA No. 592/2008. LAA No. 595/2008. LAA No. 605/2008. LAA No. 607/2008. LAA No. 632/2008 & CM No. 9079/2008. LAA No. 633/2008 & CM No. 9084/2008. LAA No. 634/2008 & CM No. 9087/2008. LAA No. 639/208 & CM No. 9303/2008. LAA No. 642/2008 & CM No. 9176/2008. LAA No. 643/2008 & CM No. 9180/2008. LAA No. 644/2008 & CM No. 9183/2008. LAA No. 645/2008 & CM No. 9188/2008. LAA No. 672/2008. LAA No. 707/2008 & CM No. 10881/2008. LAA No. 717/2008 & CM No. 11022/2008. LAA No. 718/2008 & CM No. 11025/2008 LAA No. 719/2008 & CM No. 11045/2008. LAA No. 721/2008 & CM No. 11050/2008. LAA No. 725/2008 & CM No. 11060/2008 LAA No. 726/2008 & CM No. 11063/2008. LAA No. 727/2008 & CM No. 11066/2008. LAA No. 728/2008 & CM No. 11069/2008 LAA No. 389/2007 & CM No. 17268/2007. LAA No. 392/2007 & CM No, 12380 & 17276/2007. LAA No. 404/2007 & CM No. 17632/2007 LAA No. 405/2007 & CM No. 17637/2007. LAA No. 406/2007 & CM No. 17641/2007. LAA No. 407/2007 & CM No. 17643/2007 LAA No. 408/2007 & CM No. 17646/2007. LAA No. 410/2007 & CM No. 17653/2007. LAA No. 411/2007 & CM No. 17656/2007 LAA No. 2/2008 & CM No. 10/2008. LAA No. 3/2008 & CM No. 13/2008, LAA No. 4/2008 & CM No. 16/2008. LAA No. 6/2008 & CM No. 23/2008. LAA No. 7/2008 &. CM No. 26/2008. LAA No. 10/2008 & CM No. 44/2008, LAA No. 16/2008 & CM No. 62/2008 LAA No. 17/2008 & CM No. 66/2008. LAA No. 18/2008 & CM No. 69/2008, LAA No. 283/2008 & CM No. 1388/2008. LAA No. 285/2008 & CM No. 1393/2008. LAA No. 288/2008. LAA No. 297/2008 & CM No. 1468/2008, LAA No. 306/208 & CM No. 1913/2008. LAA No. 307/2008 & CM No. 1916/2008, LAA No. 308/2008 & CM No. 1924/2008 LAA No. 312/2008 & CM No. 2006/2008. LAA No. 313/2008 & CM No. 2012/2008. LAA No. 314/2008 & CM No. 2020/2008. LAA No. 315/2008 & CM No. 2027/2008. LAA No. 316/2008 & CM No. 2031/2008 LAA No. 317/2008 & CM No. 2035/2008. LAA No. 321/2008 & CM No. 2082/2008. LAA No. 322/2008 &CM No. 2086/2008.1LAA No. 323/2008 & CM No. 2089/2008. LAA No. 350/2008 & CM No. 2745/2008. LAA No. ^395/2008 & CM No. 3756/2008. LAA No. 400/2008. LAA No. 409/2008, LAA No. 427/2008 & CM No. 4370/2008 LAA No. 428/2008 & CM No. 4374/2008. LAA No. 429/2008 & CM No. 4379/2008. LAA No. 430/2008 & CM No. 4383/2008. LAA No. 433/2008 & CM No. 4460/2008. LAA No. 450/2008 & CM No. 4841/2008. LAA No. 9/2008 & CM No. 41/2008. LAA No. 86/2007. LAA No. 95/2007. LAA No. 107/2007. LAA No. 108/2007. LAA No. 111/2007. LAA No. 117/2007 & CM No. 4042/2008. LAA No. 176/2007. LAA No. 191/2007, LAA No. 194/2007 & CM No. 9640/2007. LAA No. 195/2007 & CM No. 9641/2007. LAA No. 238/2007 & CM No. 5894/2008 LAA No. 239/2007 & CM No. 5875/2008. LAA No. 240/2007 & CM No. 5886/2008. LAA No. 241/2007 & CM No. 5896/2008. LAA No. 242/2007 & CM No. 5879/2008. LAA No. 243/2007 & CM No. 5898/2008. LAA No. 244/2007 & CM No. 5880/2008. L\A No. 245/2007 & CM No. 11205/07 5887/2008. LAA No. 246/2007 & CM No. 5895/2008, LAA No. 247/2007 CM No. 5888/2008 LAA No. 248/2007 & CM No. 5891/2008. LAA No. 249/2007 & CM No. 5899/2008, LAA No. 252/2007. LAA No. 253/2007 & CM No. 8092/200^! LAA No. 673/2008&hatch Page bof4 LAA No. 254/2007. LAA No. 255/2007. LAA No. 256/2007 & CM No. 2233/2008. LAA No. 257/2007. LAA No. 259/2007. LAA No. 260/2007. L/KA No. 261/2007. LAA No. 262/2007. LAA No. 263/2007 LAA No. 264/2007. LAA No. 269/2007. LAA No. 270/2007. LAA No. 271/2007. LAA No. 277/2007 & CM No. 12154/07 & 5882/2008 LAA No. 279/2007 & CM No. 5883/2008. LAA No. 295/2007. LAA No. 304/2007. LAA No. 367/2007. LAA No. 374/2007. LAA No. 384/2007 LAA No. 385/2007 & CM No. 17234/2007. LAA No. 398/2007. LAA No. 401/2007. LAA No. 20/2008 & CM No. 367/2008. LAA No. 253/2008. LAA No. 276/2008. LAA No. 327/2008 & CM No. 2164/2007 LAA No. 336/2007. LAA No. 347/2008 & CM No. 2680-81/08 LAA No. 371/2008. LAA No. 840/2008 & CM No. 13185/2008 LAA No. 841/2008 & CM No. 13188/2008. LAA No. 843/2008 & CM No, 13195/2008. LAA No. 864/2008 & CM No. 13316/2008 LAA No. 881/2008 & CM No. 13511/2008. LAA No. 886/2008 & CM No. 13527/2008. LAA No. 887/2008 &CM No. 13533/2008. LAA No. 889/2008 & CM No. 13538/2008. LAA No. 890/2007 &CM No. 13511/2008, LAA No. 867/2007 &CM No. 13421/2008.LAA No. 869/208 &CM No. 13426/2008, LAA No. 11/2008 & CM No. 47/2008 LAA No. 877/2008 & CM No. 13493/2008, LAA No. 949/2008 and LAA No. 950/2008 Reserved on : October 16. 2008 Pronounced on : October 23, 2008 % < Ved Prakash & Ors. etc. etc. through : VERSUS Union of India & Ors. etc. through lAA No. 673/2008 & batch . . . Appellants Mr. S.K. Rout with Mr. Parminder Sehrawat and Mr. M.P. Siddiqui, Advocates for the appellants in LAA Nos. 551,460, 461,462, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 511, 581

¶586588, 5^1, 592, 595, 605, 607, 400, 409/2008, 86, 176, 295l 304, 374/2007& 371/2008 Mr. Deepak Khosla with Mr. Sumit Jain for the appellants in LAA Nos. 69/2007, 451, 459, 4/2008, 95, 117, 176, 191, 194, 195, 269, 270, 271, 304 & 367/2007 Mr. B.S. Kharb for the appellants in LAA Nos. 107, 108 and 111/07 . . . Respondents Mr, Mr. S.K. Rout with Mr. Parminder Sehrawat and Mr. M.P. Siddiqui, Advocates for the respondents in Page 3 of 4! LAA Nos. 729, 758, 759, 766, 769, 834, 835, 839, 547, 810, 394, 5, 8, 15, 261, 263, 349, 391, 397,398,416,417,418,419, 424,439,441,632,634, 639, 707, 717, 728, 10, 17, 306, 314,315,316,317,321,430/08, 239, 240, 241, 248/2007 & 327/2008. Mr. Mukesh Gupta for the DDA in LAA 729, 758 & 707/08. Ms. Shobhana Takiar with Mr. Gauran Sarin and Ms. Supriya Juneja for the DDA. Mr. D.K. Pandey for counsel <41 for the respondent No.l in LAA 726/2008. . Mr. S.S. Dalai for the UOl in LAA Nos. 250/07, 523, 415, 416, 417, 418,419,420,421,422,423, 424, 439, 440, 441, 442/2008, 238,239,240,241,242,243, 244,245,246,247,248,249, 277 &. 27912007. CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI ^ THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEMANMOHAN SINGH

¶1WhetherReportersof Local newspapersmay be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶2To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the Judgmentshould be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SlKRl, J. For orders, see LA.A. No. 673/2008. i^oCsii^ JUDGE (MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE October 23, 2008 LAA No. 673/2008 &batch cp it IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.A. No. 673 of 2008 with LAA No. 69/2007. LAA No. 409/2007 & CM No. 17649/2007 LAA No. 729/2008 & CM No. 11072/2008. LAA No. 730/2008 & CM No. 11075/2008. LAA No. 734/2008. LAA No. 740/2008 & CM No. 11365/2008. LAA No. 758/2008 & CM No. 11541/2008 LAA No. 759/2008. & CM No. 11544/2008. LAA No. 765/2008 & CM No. 11663/2008. LAA No. 766/2008 & CM No. 11666/2008 LAA No. 769/2008 & CM No. 11673/2008. LAA No. 801/2008. LAA No. 815/2008. LAA No. 900/2008 & CM No. 13682/2008 LAA No. 551/2008. LAA No. 834/2008 & CM No. 13167/2007 LAA No. 835/2008 & CM No. 13170/2008, LAA No. 838/2008 & - ; ^ CM No. 13178/2008.LAA No. 839/2008&CM No. 13181/2"008 ^ ^ LAA No. 862/2008&CM No. 13310/2008.LAA No. 865/2008& CM No. 13325/2008. LAA No. 250/2007 & CM No. 5881/2008 LAA No. 512/2008 & CM No. 6505/2008. LAA No. 523/2008 & CM No. 6637/2008. LAA No. 529/2008 & CM No. 6818/2008 LAA No. 547/2008&CM No. 7088/2008.LAa"No. 570/2008, LAA No. 626/2008 & CM No. 8922/2008. LAA No. 665/2008 & CM No. 9691/2008, LAA No. 666/2008 & CM No. 9694/2008 l^A No. 667/2008 & CM No. 9697/2008. LAA No. 669/2008 & CM No. 9704/2008.LAA No. 762/200"8&CM No. 1021472008 LAA No. 704/2008 & CM No. 10266/2008. LAA No. 810/2008 & CM No. 12278/2008. LAA No. 646/2008 & CM No. 9194/2008 LAA No. 391/2007 & CM No. 17273/2007. LAA No. 393/2007 & CM No. 17279/2007. LAA No. 394/2007 & CM No. 17282/2007 LAA No. 395/2007 & CM No. 17285/2007. LAA No. 1/2008 & CM No. 7/2008. LAA No. 5/2008 & CM No. 19/2008. LAA No. 8/2008 & CM No. 38/2008, LAA No. 12/2008 & CM No. 50/20Q8, LAA No. 13/2008 & CM No. 53/2008. LAA No. 14/2008 & ^ CM Nos. 56/2008&12818/2008,LAA No. 15/2008&CM No. 59/2008 LAA No. 260/208 & CM No. 12822 & 793/2008, LAA No. 261/2008 &CM No. 800/2008.LAA No. 262/2"008&CM No. 806/2008& 13968/2008. LAA No. 263/2008 & CM No. 809/2008 LAA No. 298/2008&CM No. 1471/2008" LAA No. 349/2"q08& CM No. 2741/2008. LAA No. 375/2008 & CM No. 3533 & 13883/2008 LAA No. 376/2008 & CM No. 3537/2008, LAA No. 391/2008 & CM No. 3561/2008. LAA No. 397/2008 & CM No. 3763/2008 LAA" No. 398/2008&CM No. 3766/2008,LAA No. 402/2008& CM No. 3774/2008. LAA No. 403/2008 & CM No. 3778/2008 LAA No. 405/2008 & CM No. 3795/2008. LAA No. 415/2008 & CM No. 5877/2008. LAA No. 416/2008 & CM No. 5900/20QR LAA No. 417/2008 & CM No. 5878/2008. LAA No. 418/2008 & CM No. 5893/2008. LAA No. 419/2008 &CM No. 5884/2008 LAAJio-_420/2008&CM Njar:5r8^5/20eSt^AANo. 421/2008 & G^No.5902 &10M5/200g'jlM^^^ CM No. 5897/2008 b\Mio^23Z20Q8^ No. 424/20ns" ^ QA]±Q^m/2008, LAA No. 439/2008 ^ CM No. 5890/2008 LMNo^673/2008 batch n , . n. Page 1of 26 / LAA No. 440/2008 &CM No. 5901/2008.LAA No. 441/2008&CM No. 5876/2008. LAA No. 442/2008 &CM No. 5889/2008. LAA No. 451/2008. LAA No. 459/2008. LAA No. 460/2008 LAA No. 461/2008, LAA No. 462/2008. LAA No. 463/2008 LAA No. 502/2008 & CM No. 10022-23/2008. LAA No. 503/2008. LAA No. 504/2008, LAA No. 505/2008. LAA No. 506/2008 & CM No. 8842-43/2008, LAA No. 507/2008. LAA No. 511/2008. LAA No. 543/2008 & CM No. 7077 & 10865/2008. LAA No. 586/2008, LAA No. 588/2008, LAA No. 591/2008. LAA No. 592/2008. LAA No. 595/2008. LAA No. 605/2008, LAA No. 607/2008, LAA No. 632/2008 & CM No. 9079/2008. LAA No. 633/2008 & CM No. 9084/2008. LAA No. 634/2008 & CM No. 9087/2008. LAA No. 639/208 & CM No. 9303/2008. LAA No. 642/2008 & CM No. 9176/2008. LAA No. 643/2008 & CM No. 9180/2008. LAA No. 644/2008 & CM No.

9.183/2008, LAA No. 645/2008 & CM No. 9188/2008. LAA No. 672/2008, LAA No. 707/2008 & CM No. 10881/2008,1.AA No. 717/2008 & CM No. 11022/2008, LAA No. 718/2008 & CM No. 11025/2008 LAA No. 719/2008 & CM No. 11045/2008. LAA No. 721/2008 & CM No. 11050/2008. LAA No. 725/2008 & CM No. 11060/2008 LAA No. 726/2008 & CM No. 11063/2008. LAA No. 727/2008 & CM No. 11066/2008. LAA No. 728/2008 & CM No. 11069/2008 LAA No. 389/2007 & CM No. 17268/2007. LAA No. 392/2007 & CM ^ No. 12380&17276/2007.LAA No. 404/2007&CM No. 17632/2007 LAA No. 405/2007 & CM No. 17637/2007. LAA No. 406/2007 & CM No. 17641/2007, LAA No. 407/2007 & CM No. 17643/2007 LAA No. 408/2007 &CM No. 17646/2007. LAA No! 410/2007 &CM No. 17653/2007. LAA No. 411/2007 & CM No. 17656/2007 LAA No. 2/2008 & CM No. 10/2008. LAA No. 3/2008 & CM No. 13/2008,. LAA No. 4/2008 & CM No. 16/2008, LAA No. 6/2008 & CM No. j?:a/2008, LAA No. 7/2008 & CM No. 26/2008, LAA No. 10/2008 & CM No. 44/2008. LAA No. 16/2008 & CM No. 62/2008 LAA No. 17/2008 & CM No. 66/2008. LAA No. 18/2008 & CM No. - 69/2008. LAA No. 283/2008 & CM No. 1388/2008. LAA No. 285/2008 & CM No. 1393/2008, LAA No. 288/2008, LAA No. 297/2008 & CM No. 1468/2008. LAA No. 306/208 &CM No. 1913/2008. LAA No. 307/2008 & CM No. 1916/2008, LAA No. 308/2008 & CM No. 1924/2008 LAA No. 312/2008 &CM No. 2006/2008. LAA No. 313/2008 &CM No. 20]2/2Q0B,_LAA No. 314/2008 &CM No. 2020/2008, LAA No. 315/2008 &CM No. 2027/2008. LAA No. 316/2008 &CM No. 2031/2008 LAA No. 317/2008&CM No. 2035/2008.LAA No. 321/2008&CM No a082Z200£_LAA.No.322/2008&CM No. 2086/2008.LAA No, 323/2008&CM No. 2089/2008.LAA No. 350/2008&CM No 2745/2008, LAA No. 395/2008 &CM No. 37S6/?nnR Iaa m^" 400/2008,LAA No. 409/2008,LAA No. 427/2008&CM No. 4370/2008 LAA No. 428/2008&CM No. 4374/2008^1AA No. 429/2008&CM Nn 437^08, LAA No. 430/2008&CM No. 438:{/2008.LAA No. " 433/2008_&CM No. 4460/2008,LAA No. 450/2008 rM No. jM1/2gij8J.A/U;;jp,9/2008&CM No. 41/2008.LAA Nn 86/2007 LAA MaoozaAMioao^^ /' No._4^72008, LAA No. 176/2007,LAA No. 191/2007,LAA No._194/2007&CM No. 9640/2007.LAA No. 195/2007 &CM No. 9641/2007,IAA No. 238/2007&CM No. 5R94/9rin« LAA No. 239/2007&CM No. 5875/2008,LAA No. 240/2007 CM No 5886/2^_LAANo. 241/2007&CM No. 5RQ6/:>nn« \aa NoT""" 242/2007&CM No. 5879/2008.LAA No. 243/2007 ChA No 5898/2008.LAA No. 744/7007^ tm Nq. 5880/2008.LAA No 24512007&CM No. 11205/07&5887/2008.IAA 246/2007&CM No. 5895/2008, LAA No. 247/2007 & CM Nn. LAA No. 248/2007&CM No. 58Q1/2008.LAA No. 249/2007&CM No. 5899/2008, LAA No. 252/2007. LAA No. 253/2007 &CM No. 8092/2008,LAA No. 254/2007,LAA No. 255/2007.LAA No. 256/2007 &mNQ^^3i2m, LAA No. 257/2007. LAA No. 259/2007. 1AA No 260/2007.LAA No. 261/7007,LAA No. 262/2007.LAA No. 263/2007 LAA No. 264/2007, LAA No. 269/2007. LAA No. 270/2007. LAA Nln 271/2007, LAA No. 277/2007 &CM No. 12154/07 &58R2/200S LAA No. 279/2007&CM No. 5883/2008,LAA No. 295/2007.LAA No. 304/2007. LAA No. 367/2007, LAA No. 374/2007"LAA No. 384/2007 LAA No. 385/2007 &CM No. 17234/2007.LAA No. 398/2007. LAA No. 401/2007,LAA No. 20/2008&CM No. 367/2008.LAA No. 253/2008. LAA No. 276/2008. LAA No. 327/2008 & CM No. 2164/2007 LAA No. 336/2007, LAA No. 347/2008 &CM No. 2680-81/08 LAA No. 371/2008, LAA No. 840/2008 &CM No. 13185/2008 LAA No. 841/2008 &CM No. 13188/2008. LAA No. 843/2008 ^ CM Nn 13195/2008. LAA No. 864/2008 & CM No. 13316/2008 LAA No. 881/2008&CM No. 13511/2008.LAA No. 886/2008 &CM No. 13527/2008, LAA No. 887/2008 &CM No. 13533/2008. LAA No. 889/2008 & CM No. 13538/2008. LAA No. 890/2007 & CM Nn 13511/2008.LAA No. 867/2007 &CM No. 13421/2008.1-AA No. 869/208 &CM No. 13426/2008, LAA No. 11/2008 &CM No. 47/2008 LAA No. 877/2008 &CM No. 13493/2008. LAA No. 949/2008 and LAA No. 950/2008 ^ Reservedon : October16, 2008 Pronounced on : October 23. 2008 Ved Prakash&Ors. etc. etc. . _ Appellants through : Mr. S.K. Rout with Mr. Parminder Sehrawat and Mr. M.P. Siddiqui,Advocates for the appellants in LAA Nos. 551,460, 461,462, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 511, 581

¶586588, 591, 592, 595, 605, 607, 400, 409/2008, 86,176, 295, 304, 374/2007 & 371/2008 LAA No. 673/2008/i h^trh Mr. Deepak Khosia with VERSUS Union of India & Ors. etc. through : Mr. SumitJain for the appellants in LAA Nos. 69/2007, 451, 459, 4/2008, 95,117,176,191,194, 195,269, 270, 271, 304 & 367/2007 Mr. B.S. Kharb for the appellants in LAA Nos. 107, 108 and 111/07 . . . Respondents Mr. Mr. S.K. Rout with Mr. Parminder Sehrawat and Mr. M.P, Siddiqui,Advocates for the respondents in LAA Nos. 729, 758, 759, 766, 769, 834, 835, 839, 547, 810, 394,5,8,15,261,263,349,391, 397, 398, 416, 417, 418, 419, .424, 439, 441,632, 634, 639, 707, 717, 728, 10, 17, 306, 314,315,316,317, 321,430/08, 239, 240, 241, 248/2007 & 327/2008. Mr. Mukesh Gupta for the DDA in LAA 729, 758 & 707/08. Ms. Shobhana Takiar with Mr. Gauran Sarin and Ms. SupriyaJuneja for the DDA. Mr. D.K. Pandeyfor,counsel for the respondentNo.l in LAA 726/2008. Mr. S.S. Dalai for the UOl in LAA Nos. 250/07,523,415,416,417 418,419,420,421,422,423, 424, 439,440, 441, 442/2008, 238, 239, 240,241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246,247, 248, 249 277 & 279/2007. CORAM A.K. SIKRI HE HON BLE MR. JUSTICEMANMOHANSINGH

¶1WhetherReportersof Local newspapersmay be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶2To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶3Whetherthe Judgmentshould be reportediii the Digest? A.K. SlKRl. J. i

¶1All these appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafterreferred to as the 'Act'). In the appeals filed by the land owners (hereafter,for the sake of brevity, referred as ^ such) they are seekingfurtherenhancementin the compensationthan what is awarded by the[referencecourt under Section 18 of the Act. On the other hand, in ai;i the appealsfiled by the Union of India (for I ' short, 'UOr), the prayerlrtiadeis to reduce the compensationon the plea that the compensation awarded by the learned ADJ is on a higherside. |

¶2Vide Notification dated 6.6.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Act, large tract of land situateiin revenue village Kakrola was notified for ^ acquisitionfor public purpose viz. "for the planned developmentof Delhi". It was followedIby Declarationunder Section 6 of the Act and thereafterAward No. 1/93-94 came to be passed by the Land AcquisitionCollector (LACE). Total land of this village acquired was 8723 bighas and 16 biswas. In the award the LAC classifiedthe lands I into three categories. He awarded Rs.4.65 lacs per acre (Rs.96,875/- per bigha) for Block-A land. For determiningthis market value, he followed the recommendations of the Joint Secretary (Land & Building), Delhi Administrationcontained in letter dated 3.5.1990 LAA No. 673/2008&batch 5of 26 j wherein minimum price of the agriculturalland had been fixed. In respect of Block-B landi, market value was fixed at Rs.38,000/-per bigha, whereasfor the land falling in Block-Ccategory,marketvalue was fixed at Rs.32,000/-|per bigha by the LAC. i

¶3The land owners were not satisfiedwith the said fixation of market value of their land and, ^herefore,sought referencesunderSection18 of the Act. The learned ADJ answered those references vide his I Award dated 6.5.2003. [He did away with the categorizationof the land into three blocks an^ fixed uniform market value for the entire j land. As per the said award it was decidedthat fair price and market value of the land in dispute as on the date of Notification was Rs.1,25,000/- per bigha. Both the land owners as well as UOl challenged the said award by filing appeals in this Court. These appeals were decided by'orders dated 24.5.2005 whereby Award uated 6.5.2003 of the learned ADJ was set aside and the matters were remanded back to |the reference court with a direction to i adjudicatethe mattersafresh after allowingthe partiesto lead further evidence. | I • 1

¶4After remand of the cases,',the petitioner in LAC No. 462-A/2005 (nevv/), 39/1997 (old) led further evidence by producingas many as six witnesses. No additionalevidencewas adduced by the UOL I

¶5The learned ADJ has decided these referencesvide his Award dated

4.3.2008 fixing the marl<et value of the land in question at A/ appeals are preferred against the said Award L4A No. 67^/7nnR X, hatrh ^sk f fixing the aforesaid compensation,as pointed out in the beginning. Before we advert to the evidenceon record and the submissionsof counsel for the parties, it would be necessaryto take note of some nhaterial facts.

¶6When these reference^ were decided earlier vide Award dated

6.5.2003,the learned ADJ had placed relianceupon two sale deeds, both dated 4.1.1989as per which the land in the said villagewas sold at Rs.1,60,000/-per bigha. The Division Bench, while setting aside that Award vide its order dated 24.5.2005,had held that fair market value of the land could riot be based on two sale deeds, inasmuch as one ofthe sale deeds relatedonly to 1bigha of land and anothersale deed was executed in peculiar circumstances,i.e. for getting better qualityof waterfor puttingbore-wellfor takingwaterto his land for the purposeof cultivation'.

¶7The land owners have placed strong reliance on the following ^ evidence

(a) Exhibit PW-8/A, which is a Circular No. FE.33(1) 86 dated

25.9.1989 issued by the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority (DDA) fixing pre-determinedrates in respect of alternativeallotment of residentialplots in; differentareas of Delhi/NewDelhi. For I residential plots falling in west zone, rate of Rs.730/- per sq.mtr. is fixed effectivjefrom 1.4.1989to 31.3.1990. j I

(b) Exhibit PW-l/A, which| is again aletterdated 18.11.1993issued M.A,..,^1to the Additional LAA No. 673/2008&batch / Commissioner(W); Delhi WaterSupplyand SewerageDispos Undertal<ing (DWSpu). Vide this letter, certain lands allotted to DWSSDU for constructionof pumping station Najafgarh township. The rate fixed for allotmentof the said land is Rs.2G lacs per acre. i

(c) Exhibit PW-2/1, which is letterdated 24.1.1992of the Ministry of Urban Development(Land Division),Governmentof India, ^ addressed to the L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, as well as Vice Chairman, DDA. Vide this communication, the price of Government-land for^ allotmentto various social, cultural and i charitable and other[organizationsin Delhi and New Delhi I were fixed. In respectjofwest zone, the rate fixed is Rs.39 lacs per acre. '

(d) Exhibit P\X/-2/2 to 2/4 as per which Ministry of Urban sal are in Development has fixec the market rates of lands in different j areas of Delhi/New Delhi under the control of L&DO which snows that each time hjigher rates were fixed for the land in West Delhi. I

¶8The perusal of the impugned;Award rendered by the learned AD; would show that the learned ADJ made the policy of the Governmentof India for fixatpn of minimum prices of agricultural land in respectof land of Uniot^^Territon/of Delhi (ExhibitR-1) dated

3.5.1990 as the basis for fixation of the market price. As per this policy,the Governmenthad fixed Rs.4.65 lacs per acre (Rs.96,875/. ^ANo^673/20nR ( per bigha),the miriimurinprice for the agriculturalland for the area in question as on 3.5.1990. The learned ADJ noted that Notification under Section4 ofthe Act in the presentcase was issued on 6.6.1991, i.e. 13 monthsafter the commencementofthe aforesaidpolicydated i I

3.5.1990. He accordinglygranted further enhancement in the value fixed by the Governmeihtfor the said period of 13 months at 12% p.a., u/hich amount comles to Rs.l2,593.75p. In these circumstances, the market value is fixed at Rs.i,09,468.75p.or Rs.l,09,500/-per bigha. The thought process of the learned ADJ, in this behalf, is reflected in para 22 of the Award, which reads as under "22. As discussed above, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has alreadyheld that sale deeds which were filed by the petitioners cannot be considered for fixing the price and market value of the land in village Kakrola. At the same time, the Hon'ble High Court has also observedthat appreciationfor the period for 13 months has to be considered. In these circumstances and keeping in view that the. Land Acquisition Act is welfare legislation,the argumentsof Id. counsel for the Union of India seems to me not convincing as LAC himself awarded the compensation on the basis of the Government Policy. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the enhancement of appreciation for the period of 13 months. 1am, therefore, of the view that petitioner is entitled for appreciation of 13 months over and above the value fixed by LAC. On calculationthe amount of interest for 13 months @ 12% on Rs.96,875/- comes to Rs.12,593.75. If both the sums are added the total amount comes to Rs.l,09,468.75 or say 1,09,500/- for a bigha.T I

¶9Mr. Deepak Khosla led the team of lawyers appearingfor the land owners and made frontal attack to the impugned award. His ! submission was that total reliance on the aforesaid Government Policydated 3.5.1990ignor'ngotherevidenceproducedby the land owners was clearly erroneous, inasmuch as by that policy the Government had fixed •m-mimum price for agriculturalland'. His LMm^.73/2Q08 &batch J I submission is that once there was sufficientevidence in other forms indicating higher market value than the one prescribed in the said GovernmentPolicy, the courts should give due weightageto the said evidence as well, which was not done by the learned ADJ. He referred to the aforesaid four documents. First two documents, namely Ex.PW-8/Aand Ex.PW-l/Awere producedeven at the earlier stage before the remand ofthe cases by the High Court. Other two documentswere produced in the form of additionalevidence after the remand.

¶10He submittedthat as per Ex.PW-8/Ait was clearthat the rates of land in West Delhi, even for allotmentof alternativeland in respect of those whose land had been acquired, was fixed at Rs.730/- per sq.mt. His argument was that though it was developed land and, therefore,developmentchargescould be deductedtherefrom,as per the Supreme Court judgmentin the case of LandAcquisitionOfficer, Kammarapaiiy Village, Nizamabad District, A,P. v. Nookaia Rajamaiiu & Ors., 2003 (12) SCC 334, the maximum deduction which could be made was 53% and even if that is done, the market value of the subject land would come to Rs.340/- per sq.mt. As against this, the land owners were grantedcompensationof Rs.l09/- per sq.yd. only.

¶11He furthersubmittedthat Ex.PW-l/Awas the documentas per which land was allotted by the DDA to anotherGovernmentbody in the same area wherebythe lan|l was allottedat Rs.20 lacs per acre in the i i iMM&JZ3/2008_& batch ~~ Page 10of 26 yVio. nTrrtsk year 1992 whereasthe compensationgrantedto the land owners by the learned ADJ worked out to Rs.4.65 lacs per acre. Though the notificationin the instantcase was dated 6.6.1991 and even if some deductionswere to be made therefrom,the market value would be much higher. He further submitted that sufficient evidence was producedto show that the aforesaid land allottedto DWSSDU was underdevelopedland. In this behalf, he referredto the evidenceof PW-1, namely, Tehsildar, who had deposed that at the time of handing over the land to DWSSDU, it was undevelopedland. He also referred to the testimony of PW-6 Shri Raj Pal Singh, Sector Officerof HorticultureDivision of the DDA, who had brought the record relating to the expenditure incurred by the DDA for developmentof the aforesaid land given to the DWSSDU as per which total expenditureincurredwas about Rs.l9 lacs. Pointingout to the statement of PW-7 Shri Prem Chand, Patwari (Land Management) in DDA, Mr, Khosia submitted that even as per this witness no amount was spent on the developmentof the said land. On this basis, his submissionwas that Ex. PW-l/Acould be considered as basisfor fixingthe marketvalueofthe land in question.

¶12in respectof third documentrelied upon by the learnedcounselfor the land owners, namely, Ex.PW-2/1,it was argued that scheduleof rates fixed by the L&DO in the year 1992 for West Zone was Rs.39 lacs, which was much higher than the market value fixed by the learned ADJ. He also argued that the subjectland acquiredby the Governmenthad high futurepotentialvaluekeepingin viewthatthe surroundingarea had alreadybeen developedby the DDA and it was also a relevantfactor, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. TribeniDeviandOrs. v. The Collector,AIR 1972 SC 1417.

¶13He also submittedthat upward trend in the land rates was clearly proved from Ex.PW-2/2to 2/4, which could not be ignored by the learned ADJ. On the aforesaid basis, the argument of learned counsel appearingfor the land owners was that the rate demanded by the land ownerswas valid and justified.

¶14Mr. Sanjay Poddarcounteredthe aforesaidsubmissionof Mr. Khosia ^ by putting his defence with all vehemence. He relied upon certain sale deeds produced by the respondentswhich are Ex. R-2/1 to R-2/7. All these sale deeds are dated 15.6.1990and relate to the land in the same village. The area of land covered by each sale deed is 2 bigha and the total sale considerationwas Rs.1,94,000/-for 2bigha. Same is the position in respectof all other sale deeds. On this basis. submitted that the market value of the agricultural land, as is manifest from the sale deeds which are of the same period when Section 4notificationwas issued, would be Rs.97,000/-per bigha. His submissionwas that when the documentaryevidencein the form of sale deed of the same village, same period and same land. i.e. agriculturalland was available,it was not necessaryand/orproperto looi< into any other evidence, much less the documentsrelatingto neighbouringvillages. He referredto the judgmentof the Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntalabai(Smt) &Ors. v. State of lAAm^673/200R ^ h^trh Page \1 of 26 Maharashtra,(1996) 2 SCC 152 in this behalf. He further submitted that in any case the land ownerscould not rely upon the documents producedby them as they all relateto developedlands, whereasthe land acquiredwas undeveloped. He submittedthat no evidencewas led as to how much amount was spent fixing the value by the DDA and LcSiDO etc.

¶15In respect of Ex.PW/2/1 to 2/4, further submissionwas that L&DO ^ has fixed the rates, that too of developed land, for the purpose of calculatingunearned increasewhich could not be the basis for fixing the marketvalue. He also argued that no evidencewas producedto ^ suggestthat the acquired land had better potentiality. No evidence was led to show the comparisonofthe acquired land with the lands in respect of which Ex.PW-8/A, PU^-l/A and P\X/-2/l to 2/4 were issued by the DDA/L&DO. No evidence was also led on the advantagesas well as disadvantages,locationor potentiality. These documents,therefore,could not be considered,as held by this Court Raj Devi&Ors. v. Union ofindia, (145) 2007 DLT 438 {LA.A. No. 417-420/2006&batch decidedon 31.7,2007}. He furthersubmitted that evidenceof PWs. 5, 6&7was not correctlyread by learned counsel for the land owners. He, thus, contendedthat the market value should be fixed on the basis of sale deeds, namely Ex.R-2/1 to 2/7, as held by this Court in Omwati^j.Unionofindia&Anr., 2006

(90) Diy 324 {LA.A No. 94/2006&batch decidedon 27.4.2006},as per which the value would be less than what is awarded by the reference court. MANo^S/200S £ h^trh f

¶16His furtlner submissionwas that the approach of the learned ADJ in giving 12% p.a. increaseon the rates fixed by the Governmentvide letter dated 3.5.1990 was not correct as there was no principleof law that for the purpose of calculatingthe value as on the date of notificationissued under Section 4 of the Act it was necessary in all the cases to give enhancement@12% p.a., as held by the Supreme Court in MehtabSingh&Ors. etc. etc.v. Stateof Haryana,AIR 1995 SC 667. His further submission was that in any case in Omwati (supra) the increase was given @ 11.5% and not 12%. On this premise, he pleaded for reduction in the compensationawarded to the land owners.

¶17In rejoinder, apart from other arguments advanced by Mr. Khosia, his main plea was that the sale deeds produced by the respondent also could not be consideredas they relate to small-parcel of land, namely, 2 bigha, which was precisely the reason for this Court to discardthe sale deeds producedby the land owners-inits order dated

24.5.2005.

¶18We have consideredthe aforesaidsubmissionsof learned counsel for the parties with reference to the record of these cases and the evidence produced. We may first discuss the documents on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the land owners.

¶19It is not in disputethat none of these documentsrelateto the land in village Kakrola. It is also not in dispute that all these documents LAA No. 673/2008^batch relate to fully developed area. In fact, except Ex.PW-l/A, which relatesto allotmentof land by the DDA to DWSSDU, with which we shall deal with separately,otherdocumentsconcernthe area which is constructed area and the developmentwas undertaken long ago. Mr. Poddar is also right in his submissionthat none of the witnesses have been examined to compare the advantages, potentiality, situationof the land in questionvis-a-visthese documents. In Jasrath V. Union ofIndia and Union ofIndia v. iianbirSingti &Ors., (130) 2006 DLT 700, this Court had'refusedto act upon such documents, which is rTianifestfrom the followingobservationscontainedtherein:- 40, Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the partiesat some length on this aspectof the matter,we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusionthat the brochure Ex.X cannot be treatedas a determinativefactor for determiningthe fair market value of the acquired land at the relevanttime but it certainly is a relevant piece of evidence, which the court would have to location and oth evidence to sho adjacent areas w question had examine particularlyin relation to potential, er aspects. It would also be a relevantpiece of A/ what kind of prices were prevailingin the hich were fully developedand that the land in Deen acquired for completing the larger I.e. sewage syste Ex.X cannot be ultimately decid concerned they c has been argued residential scheme of Rohini by providing essential amenities m, drainageand Vv-ater treatmentplant. Thus, excluded from the zone of consideration for ng this issue. As far as the respondents are an hardly deny the said document and all that on behalfof the respondentis that it is a price of a developedarea and thus is not comparableaS'it includes various element factually correct desirable indicat( be considered b" of costing. Both these submissions are ^but as already noticed this document is a 5r in relation to various factors essentiallyto ' the court in terms of the above judgment. therefore,Ex.X has to be looked into and treated as a relevant piece of evidenc for fixing the particularly whe e but certainly not a determinativeevidence market value of the land in question and n other direct evidence by way of sale acquired land itse instances and judicial pronouncements in relation to the Ifare available on record. XX XX XX

¶44The daimantsalso claim that the smallerplots in the same I'® '^ade the basis for fixation of rate for larger LAANq^3/2008 &batch ask area acquired and there is no prohibitionin law. The Court is required to fix reasonable arid fair market value in terms of Section 23 of the Act and for this purpose they have placed reliance on the judgmentof the Suprerine Court in the case of RavinderNarain and Anr. v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 481.

¶45The potentialof the land as on the date of acquisitionis a relevant factor and in some cases could form major basis for considering the claim of the claimants. The development charges would be deducted only for compensation being granted for a developed land and the Court has to take into consideration the future potential on account of its location. In this regard, reliancehas been placed upon the judgmentof the Supreme Court in the case of HasanaliWalimchand(dead) by Lrs. V. State of Maharashtra(1998) 2 SCC 388 where the Court held as under;-

¶6The High Court has noticed in the impugned judgment and order that the "location" of the land indicates that it has building potential but fell into an error in ignoringthat factor by observing: There is no record of any income being received by any t of the landowners. These lands must, therefore, be valued as agricultural land with no potentiality whatsoever in the foreseeable future

¶7We are unable to find any justification for such observationand finding. The above finding of the High Court is contradictoryto the earlierfinding based on the location of the land. It is no doubt correct that the reference court was influenced by sale transactions in respect of developed land and it failed to make any deductionfor developmentof land while enhancingthe r - compensation, but the High Court fell into error in ^ ignoringthe future potentialof the land in questionand instead resting its finding as realized potentialonly. The evidence on the record clearly establishes that the acquired land did have future potential on account of its location.It is not denied that the area around the city of Ahmednagaris fast developingand the land in question was located only at a short distance of about one and a half miles from Ahmednagartown.

¶48Vv/e have discussed in great detail that Exh. Xand Exh.X-1 even read in conjunction with Resolution dated 24th December, 1980 are relevant factors for determining the potential,location and as a guiding factor to the value of the surroundingland to the acquired land. This by itselfcannot be treated to be a determinative factor for awarding compensationto the claimants. In fact for varied reasons, we would decline to fix compensation on the basis of this brochure. Firstly, the claimants have failed to lead any supporting evidence in that behalf. No witness has come and LAANs^mmAMsh ns, 16 of 26 r stated that the acquired land is identicallysituated and has the same facilities like the land covered under Exh.X. Further there is no direct evidence of comparable lands and/or the land having identical potential to the land covered under the scheme.Onus of this kind u/as certainlyupon the claimantsand they have failed to discharge their onus in this regard. Secondly, the valuation fixed by this Court on the basis of Exh.X in its earlier judgment dated 4th September, 2001 has already been set aside by the Supreme Court vi/ith specific observation that the High Court had fallen in error in fixing the market value of the land on the basis of Exh.X. Thirdly, in various cases the Supreme Court has already stated the law that compensation of an undeveloped land cannot be decided on the sole basis of the rates relatable to the developed land, particularly when other evidence is available on record."

¶20Moreover, insofar as schedule of rates fixed by the L&DO is concerned, not only that is in respect of fully developed residential. commercial and industrial plots, the purpose for fixing those rates is to arrive at unearned increase. In Karan Singh & Ors, v. Utiion of India, 55 (1994) DLT 511, this Court had not accepted identical evidence for fixing the market value holding that it Was not a relevant piece of evidence for this purpose. Followingobservations in this behalf would be apposite "17. We are not satisfiedthat productionof copy of schedule of rates only fixed by the Ministry of \X/orks and Housing (Land Division) will be relevant piece of evidence for determining the market value and ultimately assessing the amount of compensation under the Act when there are well known principles for determining the amount of compensation.The well known principles are aksi bitucedin Koyappathodi v. State of Kerala (AIR 1911 SC 2027) as follows: It is settled law that the methods of valuation to be adopted in ascertainingthe marketvalue of the land as on the date of the notificationare (i) opinion of experts (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactionof the purchaseor sale of the lands acquiredor the lands adjacent to the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages and (iii) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. These methods, however, do not preclude the LAA No. 67^/2008 & hntrh > Court from taking any other special circumstances obtained in an appropriate case into consideration.As the object being always as near as possible in an estimate of the marl<etvalue in arrivingat a reasonablecorrectmarket value, it may be necessaryto take even two or all those matters into account inasmuch as the exact valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be accurately determined."

¶21The aforesaidjudgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Karan Singh & Ors, etc. v. Union of India, (1997) 8 SCC 186. We may also note that in the case of U.P. Ja! Nigarn, Lucknowthrough its Chairman & Ann v. M/s. Kaira Properties(P) Ltd., Lucl<now & Ors., A1R1996 SC 1170, the SupremeCourt did not find favour with the argumentthat the market value of the land be fixed on the basis of circle rate fixed by the Collectorfor the purposeof levy of stamp duty. Similarviewis taken by the Apex Court in RanvirSingh&Anr, V. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 59.

¶22This leaves us with one document,strongly relied upon by the land owners, namely, Ex.PW-l/A, as per which the land is allotted to DWSSDU in the year 1992 at Rs.20 lacs per acre. Hovv'ever, the distinguishingfeature is that the land covered by the transactionwas of anothervillage,namely, Najafgarh. It is also not in dispute,and in fact accepted by the appellants' own witness, that this village was urbanized prior to 1974. On the contrary, the land of the land owners which is acquired and falls in village Kakrola was never urbanizedunderthe provisionsof Section507 of the Delhi Municipal CorporationAct. The land owners have also not led any evidence which would evince that both the lands are comparable. As already mentionedabove, the price of developed land cannot be compared with the under developed land. Mo doubt, the land owners have produced three witnesses, namely PW Nos. 5 to 7, on the basis of which it was sought to be argued that there was hardly any expenditureincurred by the DDA on the development of this land. However, whereas PW-S, Deputy Director, New Lease Branch, DDA ^ has mentioned that the land in question was a pond which was transferred to Horticulture Department of the DDA and Horticulture Department had put fencing of that land and also planted plants thereon. He has also stated that some amount was spent by the HorticultureDepartmentfor completion of those works but he was not aware of the actual expenditure. PW-6, Section Officer from Horticulture Division, on the other hand, produced PW-l/A collectively as well as Annexures PW-1/1 to 1/6 showing the expenditure incurred. These details would indicate that a sum of Rs.9,06,806/-was incurredon labour. The annexurewould indicate that this expenditurecomprisesof the wages paid to beidarfor worl< of Mali and watch &ward. Other annexure indicatingexpenditure of Rs.1,74,058/- reflects that that amount was spent on fencing, installationof hand pump, pump set and supply of plants. Another sheet, which demonstrates total expenditure of Rs.8,30,097/- towardssupplyof good earth, manure,sinkingof tube well, fencing, sprinklers and the like. However, these expenses cannot be indicativeof the total amountspent as for gettingthe aforesaidwork LAANo. 673/2008 rC hntrh / done permanent staff of the .HorticultureBranch is also required. How much amount out of the salaries paid to them is to be charged to this project cannot be ascertainednor any evidenceto that effect is led. There would be other infrastructural and overhead expenditure. Therefore, much credence cannot be given to the aforesaid amount spent.

¶23Also for the reasons we have indicated about the other documents, it ^ ^ would not be safe to rely upon Ex. PW-l/A to arrive at the market value of the land at the relevant period,

¶24Therefore,in view of the aforesaiddiscussion,we are of the opinion f that the aforesaid documents cannot form the basis for fixing the market value of the land. At the same time, these would be relevant pieces of evidencefrom the point of view of potential, locationand ^ effectof prevalentprice of developedland surroundingthe acquired land. In this behalf, we may quote again from the Division Bench ^ judgmentof this Court in the case of Jasrath(supra) "49. Besides the fact that Exh. X cannot be taken to be a determinativeevidencefor fixing the market value of the land but it is certainlya relevantpiece of evidencewhich the Court would have to look into while determiningthe controversy between the parties from the point of view of potential, location and effect of prevalent price of developed land surroundingthe acquired land. With these observations,we would reject the plea of the claimants that compensation should be determinedexclusivelyon the basis of Exh. X."

¶25Normally, the sale instancesof the acquired land are best piece of evidenceand if such evidenceis available,that can be relied upon for the purposeof fixation of the market value. As pointed out above, LMmjimnMMM ... 20 of 26 Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the respondents, relied upon certain sale deeds (Ex.R-2/1 to 2/7). At the same time, it is also not possible to rely upon sale deeds produced by the respondents in the form of Ex. R-2/1 to 2/7. These may be 7 sale deeds in respect of 2 bighas each, but they are of the same date, which means that these are the sale deeds of a very small area. V^hen on an earlier occasion the market value of the land was fixed on the basis of two sale deeds ^ 4^ produced by the land owners, this Court vide its order dated

24.5.2005 discarded the same on the ground that they were related to a small area, which ,is clear from the following observations therein "10. The aforesaid clearly shows that in so far as Exhibit PW-4/1 is concerned, the same has been executed for a peculiar requirement of the purchaser, who did not have sweet water for that purpose purchased a small piece of land for irrigation of the land located nearby. This can hardly be taken as basis for determination of the land value in view of the peculiar facts in which the Sale Deed was executed.

¶11In so far as Exhibit PW-1/1 is concerned, the peculiar facts / have been set out. The land is measuringonly one bigha and in r the circumstances set out in respect of which that document has been executed, we are of the considered view that it is not possibleto determinethe market value of a large track of land measuring more than 8723 bighas on the basis only of that document." Once we reject the sale deeds produced by the land owners, on the parity of reasoning it is difficult to accept the sale deeds produced by the respondents,v^/hich also relate to small piece{s) of land.

¶26Where does the aforesaiddiscussionleads to? Obviously,neitherthe evidence relied upon by the land owners nor the sale deeds relied LAA No. 673/2008&batch Pgg^ 21 of 26 7-, upon by the UOl can be the foundation for measuringthe market value. At least they cannot be taken to be determinative evidence for fixing the marketvalue. However,their other relevancyin terms ofJasrath(supra) shall be taken into considerationappropriately.

¶27This leads our discussion to the policy letter dated 3.5.1990 of the Governmentof India fixing minimum price of agriculturalland. The learned ADJ for this purpose referred to the judgmentof this Court in the case oi Omwati\%\i^xd)wherein the SupremeCourt had made the followingobservationsqua such policy decisionsfixing minimum value of the land

¶15Such policy decisions of the government cannot be treated as a substantivepiece of evidence. They are documents prepared by the Government after due verification and surveys,'butthe documentsitself does not refer to any distinct piece of evidencewhich was consideredby the governmentfor determining the minimum price payable for acquisition of agriculturalland. At the same time, this policy decisionof the Government cannot be treated to be either entirely inadmissibleor irrelevantfor the purpose of determiningthe controversy in issue. This reflects the conscious decision of the appropriategovernmentnofto allow registrationof the sale deeds, wherein the agricultural lands anywhere in Delhi are proposed to be sold below the specified rate i.e. Rs.4.65 lacs per acre (i.e. Rs.1,11,778.84per bigha). This value was fixed in the year 1990. We do not intend to say that the governmentis bound by this price and the petitionersmust get this price, but with such variationsthat are permissiblein law, this would be some kind of a guidelinefor the court to arrive at just and fair market value of the land at the relevant time."

¶28It is, thus, clear that such policy decisionsofthe Governmentcannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence. No doubt, in the absence of any other cogent evidence produced, which would indicatethe marketvalue of the land in question,the Court can rely upon such policy decision. We also should not be unmindfulof the LAANo. 673/2008&batch 22 of 26 J I fact that the rate fixed in the aforesaid policy decision is the minimumprice'of the agriculturalland. Therefore, it would only provide some kind of a guidelinefor the court to arrive at just and fair market value of the land at the relevant time. When other evidence is produced, though cannot be made the basis of fixing market value, that at least would indicate that the market value of the land was higher than the aforesaid minimum price fixed by the Government. Therefore,some latitudetowardsthat has to be given in arriving at fair market value.

¶29Though we have already noted above that documents relied upon by the land owners cannot be consideredas determinativeevidence for fixing the market value of the land, but their relevancy is still to be kept in mind from the point of view of potential, location and effect of prevalent prices of the developed land surroundingthe acquired land and this much peep into these documents is permissible. When we look into the documents fronn this angle, it becomes clear that the land price, even of agriculturalland or in the said vicinity, was more than the minimum price fixed by the Governmentin its policydated 3.5.1990.

¶30We are, therefore, of the opinion that the land owners would be entitledto the compensationat rates marginallyhigherthan the rates fixed by the Governmentvide policydated 3.5.1990and it would be safe to add 10% more value than the one fixed by the Government indicatingthe minimum price. LAA No. 673/P.n08&batrh -\

¶31It would be of Interestto note that If we apply anotheryardstickand look Into the ffiatterfrom anotherangle, we may arrive at the same result. As noted above, the respondentshave heavily relied upon sale deeds which are of 2 bighas each. As per these sale deeds, the sale consideration for 2 bighas was Rs.1,94,000/-. However, Rs.15,520/-was spent on the stamp duty, etc. as well, which has to be added to the sale price. After addingthat amount,the price of 2 blgha would be Rs.2,09,520/-, On this basis, value of one bigha would be Rs.l,04,760/-. If we take the sale deeds into consideration, which are of 2 bighas each, the. sale deeds produced by the land ownerswill also have to be taken into consideration. As per the sale deed dated 4.1.1989,for one bigha the sale price was Rs.1,60,000/-. When we take averageof the two sale deeds, one produced by the land owners and the other by the respondents,the amount would work out to little more than Rs.1,20,000/-. We may clarify that these sale de^ds are not made the basis of awarding the compensationas they are discardedon the groundthat they relateto small area of land. The only purpose was to point out that the marketvaluefixed by us at Rs.1,20,500/-would be reasonable.

¶32The only questionthat remainsto be consideredis as to whetherthe trial courtwas right in givingappreciationthereupon@12% p.a. for a period of 13 months, inasmuch as, the policy letter is dated

3.5.1990whereas Section4notificationis of 6.6.1991. Mr. Poddar argued that in the case of MeAfai,Singh (supra), the SupremeCourt had indicated that it was not necessary in all the cases to give LAAMo^73Z2008&batch J enhancement 12% p.a. However,Mr, Khosia, learnedcounsel for the land owners, rightly pointed out that the comments of the Supreme Court in that case were in respect of the land in Haryana. Position in Delhi is totally different. It has been established on record, judicial notice whereof is taken in various judgments,that there is a consistent upward trend in the market rates of lands in Delhi. It is for this reason that in number of judgments,this Court has accepted the formula of increaseof rates @12% p.a. We may again refer to the earlier orders dated 24.5.2005 passed in these appeals while remanding the case back to the learned ADJ. The aforesaid Government policy was taken note of by the Division Bench and following pertinent observationswere made in respect thereof

¶7The aforesaid referred to Government policy has been consideredby this Court in Tej Ram v. Union of India &Anr.. Ill (2004) DLT 465 for fixation of the land value. It may' however.benoticed at this stage that in the present case, the acquisitionis about a year later of fixation of the land price, which would requireappropriateenhancement."

¶33Thus, the court had opined even at that stage that appropriate enhancementwill be required. This is preciselythe course of action adopted by the learnedADJ. We are, therefore,of the opinionthat the land ownerswould be entitledto appreciationof 13 months @ 12% p.a. and the learned ADJ rightly determinedthe market value on that basis.

¶34On this reckoning,we are of the opinionthat the marketpriceof the land in questionas on 3.5.1990should be Rs.96,875+Rs 9685 In LM±iQ^3/2008 &hatch ask Page25 of 26 r this manner, as on

3.5.1990, the market value would be Rs.l,06,560/-. We are of the opinion that the learned ADJ rightly held that appreciationof 13 mionths @ 12% is to be given. By applying this formula, market value of the land as on the date of notificationunder Section 4 of the Act would be Rs.l,20,500/-per bigha. , '

¶35In these circumstances,the appeals of the land owners are partly ! ^ ^ allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.l,09,500/- to Rs.l,20,500/-. These appeals are allowed in the aforesaid manner with proportionate costs. The appellants shall also be entitled to all ^ other statutory benefits, as awarded by the learned ADJ. All the pending applicationsalso stand disposed of. As a consequence,the i J-appeals preferred by the UOl are also dismissed. October^^^, 2008 hsk LAA No. 673/2008 & batch (MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE