Manjeet (Minor) v. UOI & Anr

ORDER /o

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma V5. Union of India cir Anr. -^tSuSiLGAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IN TBE HIGii COURT OF BELlfil' A1' NEW DELHI Pronounced on: Jariuafv 06. 20/2 . (Gim)-A). I LA.APV.]195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHAMTHAL) RANBJR SHARJXIA .....Appellant Through: , •. Mr.B.S.Maao,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.,yerma, Mr.'.fitinTewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand YadaV'and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, . Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. " Mi\Raghiiv!ndefGodarcV, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi aadMr.tLS.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roiiland iVlr,B.K,R()uti'ay,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates;,. •/ ' • Mr.,PankaiViveiv',.Advocate .MriRajeshYaday,Mr/DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitIChosla and J^r.]^hai:j.anjay.Mehiawat,Advocates . S.flautela, "Advocate-Mr.LS.Dah:iya;AdvcH:ateV Mr.SandciepThajchur,Ad-vocate Mr.Atul 'IrijijatlAi,AdvcKaLe. • ' Mr.M.iS.Negi,and MrJi..S.Ra!Ue.la,(..••'idvocaies Jbr respondentin appeals-Hledby IjOI) versus , UNION OF INDIA&ANR: Responded ' ihrough: Mr.SanjayPodthir,SeniorAdA-ocatewith Mr.Sanjuy Pathal</Mr.Mohitrao..:ac!havand Vls:NaA'iinSwaii-L . Ms.K-.Xatiniitdi;CirarLAdvocates.forI,AC/1)01 ?ylr.AJayV^nilkvjiVls.B'ecnasliavv-Soni. Mr.Mukcsh Kamar,Mr :^^K.Sethi,iN4r;PawanMathur. Mr.Kunal ShanriH,Advoe<,u:c;:fbrDDA • '• - ct,n'vn^^olf LAAPKToSrt 0,^00. (Cross-ODiftcLioas):;•i. \.APP.768''20(iR;. l;A.APP.77()/2()08; l^.A;ip.r^a). 1 &copncctedAppealsorvillr.gi; :VAop. No./94/?i);i0&."'MituriedAppo.^isbf Villa^oljiwawn' !-V-App. in/?0]0&connoandAppealsofyilldBoPociianpiir . PcJgc* I of 73 LA.APP.771/2008. & CM.No.425/20()9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections);, LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA;APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008' & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/20b8; 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.AFP.'805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; 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.519/200,9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; l.A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; CM.No.709/2009 LA.APP.974/2008 LA.APP.833/2008; CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008;. LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); L.A.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008; l.,A.APP. 1047/200.8;LA. APP. 1048/2008& CM.No.7851 /2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008; LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & •CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No. 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0bjections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); L.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081./2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections);

1..A.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; •A.y\PP. 1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.T^o.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP. 1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);^L^^E^a^m;J..A.APPAil2/2im^v CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Obiections'(r^^^i^lSBlii#Mir8i&CM.No.3826/2009" TTT^^bjecti^m])LA.APP.1115/20(^LA.APP.l116/2008; LA.APP.l121/2008; lXAPirri2672008;LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objectjon.s); I,A.API'.1130/2008; LA.APP.1131/2008 & C]Vl.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008 &• CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections);' LA.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l140/2008; LA.A.PP.1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008;;LA.APP.l16172008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APf.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.API^1170/2008;LA.APP.1171/2008;LA.APP.1172/2,008;LA.APP,1173/2008; LA.APP.1175/2008;LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.l179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP.1182/2008;-LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections)' l.A.APP.]184/2008; LA.APP.l185/2008; LA.APP.l18672008& CM.No.7013/2009 IA.App. No, -J W!}/?.(m& connfifctedAppeaLsofVillaRR Bharthal LA.App. No. 291/7.010& corinecledAppeaLsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.No, ;L.Tl/.''.nlO& conneclHc)Appeal.?ofVillagePochariDur' Page of 23 t5' (Q-oss-Objcclions); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP.] 193/2008; LA.APP.l 194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009.(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;,LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 124r/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.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/200'9; LA.APP.37/2009; . LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & •, CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009;' LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.i'35/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; •LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA. APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; ].A.APP.367/200,9; LA.APP.459/2009; I.A.APP.489/2009;, LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009;

1.A.APP.511/2009; I.A.APP.-572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/20]l LA.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP:222/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; , LA.APP.437/2G09; LA. APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010;' LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009:. LA.APP.513/2009; - LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP.l 138/2008; l.A.APP.ll77/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA. APP.20172009 . CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA,APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 L A. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA. APP. 5 06/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.l 176/2008 (Relatiiig to Notification No. F.10(30)/9,6/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. 20! 1 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE.-BIJWASAN). DIiVENDERKUMAR • • ; ......Appellant 'nirough: Mr.R.S.fomar,Mr.VirendraSingh ; . ; lA.App, No .119.'i/;'.008& connectedAppealsofVillag.eBharthal '..A.App.No. 2S4/2010&connectodAppeal.';of VillageBijwasan LA.App, No. ni/ZOlO& connectedAppeal.';ofVillage Pochanpu.' Pago 3 of 29 r versus Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) UOI & ANR LA.APP. I'-A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. [,A.APP. I'.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. [A.APP. 1,.A.APP. J.A.APP: •LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/20-10 282/2010 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 & Respondents riirough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao' Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for DOI/LAC , Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,71 & 72 in appealfiled by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. lJ/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP, 57/2010 LA.APP. 221./2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP, 283/2010 LA.APP. 288,/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 35L''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, 80/20,10 , C.M,No.964/20IlXCr LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP.. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 277,/2010 LA.APP; 284/2010 LA.APP; 289/2010 LA.APP, 313/2010 LA,APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP, 760/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 L.A.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 73172010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 •oss-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP. LA,APP, LA.APP, 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, & 51/2010 5 5,'2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010

722./2010 726/2010'

732./2010 828/2010 (Relatingto NotificationNo'. F.10(30)96-L&.B,'LA/13417dated 13.12.7,000 L""'' AcquisitionAct. 1894 & Award No. i8/.^002-20Q3,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND • lAApp, No, 1195/2008&connGctnclAppeaKsof VlllasnBharth,-!! .. .. ' ' lAApp. No. 294/xOlO&connoctetJ-Appnals-ofVillageBijwasan ..A.App.No. I.13P.0.10& connecU-dAppoalsof VillagePochanpur . . . • . . I'agt; 4 of Z9 r o % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18:2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 .A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) 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 in R-22) versus. UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: ...... Respondents Mr.SanJayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.NavHnSwain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr..SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA.. LA. API LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. J.A.APP. LA.AI'P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . in/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 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010-662/2010 768/2010 ' 1052/201,0 116/20J;L..! 121/20n"' 485,/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. • LA.APP. L.AAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.A,PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 , 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 .156/2010 15/2010 2,50/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011

429./20I1 522/2011 535/2011'^ 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. IA.App. NO. 1195/2008&connoctndAppeal.,ofVillafieUh.rthal AApp, ^0. 29./2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan pp. "• ^11/2010&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur. (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issuedunder Section4oftheLand AcquisitionAct 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR/JUSTICE SUNIL jGAUR • I ORD-E'R • ' ' 06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which'enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcreiorewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these-bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificaUonNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Marthal., Bijwasan and 1ochanpiirare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'iyw?arkaPhase- //' 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., I3harthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. i. Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the. aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e.. Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@?13.82 lacs per acre for IMock 'A' (level field - with top-'soil)and @-?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withoutop soil).

4.^ Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheii-acquired lAApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppoalsof VillageBharthal ' • " ® Appealsof Vlllage-Bu^^^ •App. No. 1U/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 thcir 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, whereas appellants'of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying u]3on the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnaiaka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Anr.,

(2010) 13 sec 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana andAm\,'

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsiidar (Land Acquisition} & Ors., (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh • and Anr, Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha I'akira

(I)) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India. & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. Siate of JImy ana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALli 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik i!-x State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 sec 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, (2011) 7 sec 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhaiand. ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, lA.App. No. .1.1.9;)/;'0088( cunnc;ctedAppnalsof VillagRSharthai i.A.App, No. 7.94/;'.010&• connoctnd Appealsof Villain Bijwasan IA.App. No in/20.1.0&connnct(!dAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • . PaBG7of29 Gujarat ami Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175; RisaiSingh& Ors, Fs, UnionofIndia& Anr" 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. of India and Anr,, (2009) 15 -SCC 769; General Manager, Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPaiei and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valiiyammaland Anr vs: SpecialTehsikiar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs, Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20]n DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr,, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal &,. :Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007-tidedas Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and EhideRam vs. UnionofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesai[ddecisions,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 appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in viev/ the develop .tiine and the same cannot be limited to

¶7ft was pointed out by Mr.R:S.T Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage ra parses tta-ough the land of VillageBharth.l,dividingit into two parts, i.e.. on the easternsideofthe railwayline is lire tGl Airport,New Delhi lA.App, No. U9?/2003&coiinecledAppealsof VillageBharihal A.App. Mo, 3J/I/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageUljwasan • App. No. 111/2010 connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur raent in the area over a period of the near future alone. omar, counsel for appellants that way line ol Village Biijwasan i/1 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil" and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-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 land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension ol IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsandthereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired' for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslm-^^to highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agriculturarin spite of Notificationof 16"' October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agriculturar to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofth%Notifi.cationof24'" October,1994. 9, It was argued with much veheraence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded,by the Reference Court by relying upon P. lA.App. No, imsA'-OOS& connnctndAppealsofVillage Bharthal l,A.App..No.291/2010&connGclGdAppealsofVlllaBG Bijwasan . • . LA.App. No. .i.i]/;^010&conneclcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur , ReddiA Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ore, (1995) 2SCG 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its iater dccisionin Udlto Bass vs. SlateofBaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged k.cepmgmview the developmentin the area over aperiodoftime and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,iftlie authoritiesdo not put tlie land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale Deedsof VillagePochanpurto highlight lhat (he sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of U,e said variation,tliesc sale exemplars catinot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjamMoIm Dessai "s. StateofGo"

(2010) 13 see 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the laird which comes,to ?57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliancc placed by the KefcrcnceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. II. Assessmentof market value of the acquired land was sought bv , Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe1& DO rates fixed by the Governmcnfand also on the basis of pre-cletermmedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate Plots in tl,e year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand • potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is •i-A.App.n" VillageBijwasan conn,.-ctedAppalsof VillagoPochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Dctermined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

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

23.J0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of' 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

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

11.9.2001issuedby the Governm.entofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid. doM>n by various decisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar 2010(3)SCC661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfxctors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforea.scertaini.n.'^ the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds prod.ucedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case ^of Chinda Fakirci Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin J-A.App. No. U9V2008&ct,nned.edAppMlsof VillagelJh;,rth3l ' LA.App. No. ?94/2010&conncctodAppealsof VillageUijwasan 1-A.App.Mo. .111/2010&connectedAppeal.?of VillagePochanpur ' Page 11 of :19 1>1 cas.e ike average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Mohi Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and. not by averaging of dijferent types of, sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and 13,36,000 in Block B in violation ' of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haiyana 2010(1) : SCC 444. As a consequence, the; impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.l framed on 27.2.2007. 1^ g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal M'as changed and.these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of.Delhi State. - The masterplan and Notifications of Governmentfor , land use change show that in future land, can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the : appellantleadevidencein respectof the 74^'' amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of M'hich the Municipal Corporation Act was .amended and the area, where the land is situated, M>a.s deemeda municipalarea and the municipal Counsellor ||||r^ _was electedfrom, there.. No Panckayatelections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the low laid down in AIR. Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr Onion of India andrefusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpayfor the subject land.

i) Ignored the fad that .Respondent No. 2-had also I.A.App. No. 1.195/?,Q08& connccledAppealsofVillageBharthal ' LA.App, No. 291/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillageBiiwasan ' bV.App. No. lll/20in&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Papel2of29 % 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 valuationof the subject land is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set 'by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of • the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of D^vvarka Phase

¶11It is reiterated that 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. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.J99fi . although they clearly establish the commercial •potentiality ofthe saidland. In Sangunthalav.Tahsildar • ,

(2010) 3see 661 it was held,that thepurposefor : • ' winch, land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact y'^hetherthe landhas gotbuildingpotentialityto be used ; for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future ' needs to be considered. ; m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied bv the buddings are to be treated,as house sites. The lands were acquired,for purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portionofthe land is beingconsideredas ' , house site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof• beingputin betteruse as housesitesin the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. J47/2009,the factual detailshave been providedwith aprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appelJantsof the ^ appealsin thesebunch ofappeals.. ..

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,,it was urged by Mr.AnaridYadav, Advocatethat the effectof LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal • I.A,App.No. 294/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillageiJijwasaji' '-A.App.No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 9^ urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatray Thirihkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMekra (Major General)& Ors, Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Prc-Dctermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant l.o determine the market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthat thoughas per Section51-A of Land AcqiiisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidence but the same 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 other fectors namely,nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesrelied upon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai La! vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors' vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Ckand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No,656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price mashortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the' seller LA.App No. 1195/2008&connectGd/Appealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillageBijwasan .lA.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • I'agol4of2£i and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Imowledgeof the usual . pj-evalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf ol the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DetcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Ghand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SmhilKumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So ftr as potentialityof the land is concerncd,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seraor counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat tlie same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the mmunum indicativeprice ofthe agiiculturalland by the Governinemas on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously dctemiined by the Reference Court, as in Smhit Kmmr (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired ' lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RclerenGeCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves (o be brought in line while granting appreciation @10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. ' ' •

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe compm-ablelandis thepricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling pp. a u.l/i010a ccnn.cl.rlAppwbof VillagePochanpur PagGl5of.?.g seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex. Court in Udho Dass State of Haryana.& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or arny other kindof importanceor because of its explosivepopulation;^

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

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingM>ater and electricsupplyfor occupants of buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsorthe likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways] public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin thevicinityor closeproximityoftheacquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding V areas of the acquired land which m.ay become availableto the occupiersof buildings,if builton the acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to \ specify a few. "

¶181he potentialityofland for the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for .. f I/^ App. No. .1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal . LA.App. No. ?.y4/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan ' No. .1..1.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' . P 16 f " which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscould not be a ground to discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

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

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

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

¶21Apcy. Comt m Valliyammal (Supra),while takingnote of ihe fact that the •acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,-educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was im,proper.;T'he pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- !,A.App. No. ll.!95/2008& conncctedApppaisof VillageBharlhai ' 1/VApp, No. 291/2010& connGcU!dAppealsofVillaga Bijwasan l-A.App.l\Jo. l'i.l./201.0&connedoclAppealsof VillagePochanpur PaEol7of29 3® "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, M>ill be considered. Where hoM'ever .there are several sales ofsimilar lands w.hoseprices range in a narrow band^And.th, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in. respect of t-\vo sales are .m.a.rk.edlydifferent, it can only lead to an inference that they a.re yvith reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of vinder--va.lua.tion or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by J;he Apex Court in Chindha Fakim Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- € "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land, under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a vvilling vendee and. the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons . acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterate(^by the Apex Court in Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four-factors - situation of the land.] nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of lo.ndfor development in the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices ' would be slow, steady and . •, gra.d.ual,withoutanysuddenspurts orjumps. , lA.App. No. ]19S/:.'008& connnclRdAppnalsofVillageBhartlial i.A.App. No, 294/2010 & connccted Appealsof VillaRc Bijwasari - l-A.App.No. 3J1/2010a connectedAppealsofVillagePor.har,pur PagelSofZa On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where 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 areas. 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 more per 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 marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it,-that is about 5% to 7.5%)per annum. This rule of thimtb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be appliedwoulddependupon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the -mode of determiningthe market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there Is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes, the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a, neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe-and unreliable standard whe}e the gap is larger. Tor example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a 'sale or IA.App. Nt). 113:;/200;?«( connfictfidAppealsofVillage Bhartha! . lA.Apo. No. 291/2010&connnctcdAppealsof VillagB Bijwasan LA.App Nr).lu/.?.0]0&connnctedAppealsof VillageFochanp.jr. d r 1 9 01 29 acquisition,in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the Vate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apart from-the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase. "

¶241his Courtis mindllilof the dictumofthe Apex Courtin I StateIndmtrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding, computation of compensation for the acquired lands "by adopting comparativesales methods.What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands yvith different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, forming oj a residential layout, courts have ^'^^ometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided and a uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25[Jndisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSyvamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.-

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/]0) which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas mrespcctofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6, 13iswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof the landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds , No. 1195/2008a con,u.ctcdAppc:^ -AApp. No. mnoxo&connt;ct(!dAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. IMo. l,Il/20:0&connnclcidAppcMlsofVillagePochanpur ' ' •A i (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treeitedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands 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 purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not €Been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purcl.iaser/vendeeofthe aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited trom 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 purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25"^ March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011•and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Ra] Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2*011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village •m' Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instantmatters, though,the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquu-edlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing , ^1"-li9V2008&connectedAppealsofVillage!Dharthal . WApp. No. 294/2010&ronnectedAppealsof VillageOijwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectodAppealsof VillagePochanpur market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ik.PW-1/4 to lix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

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

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developed lands and Pre-DeterminedRates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in questioti.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors, R Land Acquisition Officer ffyderabad Urban Development. • AuthorityHyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe, acquiredland,with buildingpotentialityM>ith referenceto the pricefetched by scde ofplots in. a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood. LA.App. No. .1,195/2008&connficted,AppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/;?.010a connccledApptjalsofVillageBijwa.^an I.A.App. No. T.I.l/M.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ^ 22 ,f orwhetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland, with buildingpotentialitywith 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 befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice M'hich theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act., Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes a.vailable, then what could,be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired land with re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by ^ a small percentage having regard to the degree of its ^ buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be'made available in that regard. A small percentage increaseto be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased,value for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales oj buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the a.ccjuiredland, indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even if formed, in the acquired land. "

¶31In view ol the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,'developingthe same, and transferwngperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chaml •^1^ (Supia),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Prc-DeterminedRates in determining,the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chaml(Supra),acoordinateBench 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 IA.App. N(),ll'«/?,008&conncctadAppealsofVillageBharllial lAApp, No, 2<m/2010&connectodAppealsof VillageBijwasan •A.App, No. .11.1/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur \ ' the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court-has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallands inquestion. Now .what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka, Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,if the gap isof only of a few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap,between the two Notifications,i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate l-A.App. No. .11.9:^/2008& connoctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App, No. J.94/2010&connnctGclAppealsofVillageBijwasan !-A.App.No. 111/2010&connncUidAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ of 29 'v,J € cscajationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the lespondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a cooidinatebcnch of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I find that 1{)% increase on account of higher potentialit)'' of the acquired land over and above the market vaJue determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12%o per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the mattei,the cross-objectionsoithe respondentare dismissed.

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

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24'" October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be uiban. it IS true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use o! the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselPis not sufficientto i.A.App.No. llflVMOS&connectedAppenisofVill;,gM3harth;,I• M.App. No. 2-M/2010&connoctndAppealsofVillageBijwaMn l-A.App.No. 3.U/2010&connectedAppfialsof VillagePochanpur I'ygG zr> of 29 P'.csume that the acquired laiids had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere beingany developmentin and around.theacquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satmng. Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, ^ 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been mcrcascin pricedue to higherdemand,on accountof potentialityof the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then aijpellantscould have laid their hands on othersale instancesin the area % in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat tire qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsoi Radha Su.ami Sa,,ang. Bea. in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(bx.PW-l/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ux. PW-l/ll) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground tp grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid ^ sale instances.Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndmtrialDevelopmentCorporation iJiSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded loi the lands acquiredunder the same.Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Govmimentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally-factorsin the rise of price due to higher potemiahty.Taking note of the feel that there is agap betweet, what ' Apll. No Appeal..Of VillageBijwasan -I- ^ '•''20.10,4 con,neciHdAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' € would be cxpected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimumagriculturalprice has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands inJai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushi!Kumar (Supra)and I find no reason to take a differentview than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra),

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural [ands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands,in question. iMndingof the ReferenceCourtinmatterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation ol the acquired lands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out frorn the cvidcnceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquired lands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,Indian Oi! and Bhai-at PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the Vicinity oJ the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of tlie RefeienceCourt. In the consideredopinionof this Court, on accountof alorcsaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof DwarkaPhase-I. What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market value of the acquired l^s as assessed by the Reference Court on account ofthe higher buildingpotentialityin the.acquired lands is the l/v.A[;p.No. .119.V2008& connectedAppealsofVillage!Bharlhal l-A.App, No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijv^asan LA.App. No; l.n/?.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoclianpur p ^ 1^0 scltlod legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mina NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the pass,Mayofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up Imddmgsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a '^w cing poientialuyand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattriljutable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem .4^^ with equivalenceby uniformly applyingthe Government'sminimum puces (or the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village.Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin , these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotenlialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Biiwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith Ite appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof pp. MO. .1.1..,.,20.1G&connc-ctadAppcaLs.:,fVillagePochanpur of ;!9 € the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these three villagesin questionis determined@?1.6,50,000/-p^rp^porthe Caicgo;y y\ land and @?14,69,600/-per bigha for the Category lands in question. -li. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siaiuiorybenelitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin Ihe iudginenl reported in Sunder vs. VOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 arc granted,except for the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, lor ttliicliperiodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswould be entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42Ihe above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationa.nount,ifany, depositedby eithersidewiththe Registrar Geneiai ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. JaEurary 06^ 2012 pkb /:• i (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE i -I w < lA"pp.^0. .l.isy2008&con.noctpdAppealsofVillag;?Bhsrthal I-App. Nc. 2'MmiORconnocl.c!App.alsofViil.soaijw.sar .AVPP..O.1.1.1/2010 connoclcdAppealsofVillagePoch;i;;ur Pago 29 of 2il € IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA ' , Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.jSfegiand Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mi-.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondent m appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathalc,Mi-.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.BaniceyBihari Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mi-.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. COl^M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For cdrrectiomi). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationlias alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. Ihe typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigl,a% whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No.' 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary ' 'v-'Oiiectionsbe cajTiedout tortliwith.. In vjewof the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof. € <lr —c.. JANUARY 12,2012 " pkb hA.App.No.1195/200^ Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reservedon: November/^.. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 + LA. APP. 1113/2008 MANJEET (MINOR) 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. Jpf Mr.PankajVivek,Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR