Mahender Singh v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. [L GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb I IN TOE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI \ IKJOll Reserved on: NoyenjJiej^ 06, 2012 (GRID-A) I LA.y\PP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHAR]\.1A Appellant rhrough; Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,MkSmita Maan,Mr.R.SA'erma,Mr.JitinTewathia,Advocates Mr.AnandYadav and Ms.AnitaToraar,Advocate Mf.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghiivinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Roiitand Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates, Mr.PankaJ Vivek, Advocate Mr.RfijeshYadav. Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.Samitlihosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.fi.S.Rautela,Advocate; Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur; Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.lI.S.Raulela,OVdvocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOl) versus UNION (•)FINJ3IA& ANR.' Respondents' 1hioLigh. Mr.SanjavPoddar,SeniorAdA'ocatewiih Mr.Saaja) Pathak.,Mr.lVioh.itraQ.tadha\'and Vls.NaA:linSwain Ms.K.KaumudiKiran,Advocatesfor I.AC/UOl Mr.AJayVerraa,Ms.BecnashawSoni. Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr S.K.Sethi,Mr.Pav/anMathun IVlr.Kunai Sharma, Advocaie for DDA !.A.APP.4i2;'2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cro8s--0feoeclions).f,A.AFP..45 •l.A.APP.45.j/2008; LA.APl'.688/2008.& CMNo.5990/20]0fCross-Obi,. ^ CM.No.433/2009•(Cross--ObJections); LA.APP.70i/ No.5]0/2009 (Cross-OViectioii;;);. !..• APP.768.;'200R; i;...\.APP,77( i.A.App. Uy:i/200.B&corncctGdApppalsof Vilkigi!Bharlhyl I.A.Aop. No. /94/?030S. coniiQctedApp(;.jlsof Vill^BoBijwaijn l.'\.App, .iJi/?niO&connnciodAppGalsofViiUifjcPocHanoiir Pagt! 2/2008; lions); '/2008; ec •20 L oi Z9 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.77 2/2008; 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.77 LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Obje LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2 6/2008; ctions); & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM:No.93 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813// CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.8 LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.S 19/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Obje LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP,915/2008; LA.APP.951/2 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.97 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.97 LA.APP.82 LA.APP. 83 & 16/2009 0/2008; 3/2008; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; CM.No.709/2009 LA.APP.974/2008 CM.No.7r:)/2011 ctions); & 3/2008; 5/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.5f2/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Obje LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.105 LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No.17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.105 ctions); 0/2008; 2/2008; 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-0biections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.-623/2009(Cross-Objections);

1...A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & 'CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Obiections); LA.APP. 1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 10 56/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); .LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.6 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP, 1095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM,No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/>008 & CM.No:3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/>008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1113/2008 & CM..NO.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008 LA.APP.l126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); i,A.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008;LAAPP.l135/2008.& CM',No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);.I.A.,APP.l[40/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 16172008; LA.APP.1166/2008 LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008 LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.11713/2008 LA.APP.l 175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP. 117.9/2008; LA.APP.118 LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933.^2009(Cross-Obje LA.APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.APP.l 18672008& CM..No.70 l.^.^pp. No. n95/?,008 & conr.GctGdAppeaLsofVillageBharthal I.A App. No. Z9/1/Z0.10& corinGctedAppealsofVillage Bijvva,san I.A.App. No. .ll]./.''.nlO& connGcteclAppeal.sof VillagG Pochariour' Page /2008 ctions) 3/2009 Xo\29 (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP.119 LA.APP.1193/2008;LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.1195/2008;LA.APP.119t7 LA.APP.1198/20Q8& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.121 LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP.1225 CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241 CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.125 LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.127^. LA.APP.1280/2008;LA.APP.1281/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.128k LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.3 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.5 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.7 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Obje LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.i3 LA.APP. 137/2009 LA.APP. 143/2009 LA.APP. 187/2009 LA.APP. 198/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP; 197/2009; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011

1.A.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.yVPP.230/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245,/2009; LA.APP. 13 LA.APP. 14 LA.APP. 19 LA.APP.20 CM.No.70: (Cross-Obje LA.APP. CM.No.72,(j LA.APP.24 LA.APP.30 LA.APP.45 LA.APP.48 LA.APP.49 LA.APP.50 LA.APP.51 LA.APP.56 LA.APP. LA.APP.117 2/2008 /2008 /2008 1/2008 /2008& a008& 2/2008 '/2008 •/2008 9/2009 9/2009 11/2009 itions) 5/2009 9/20,09

5./2009 l,/2009 1/2009 7/2009 :;tions); 3/2009; 6/2009 3/2009 5/2009 5/2009 /2009 3/2009 3/2009 )/2009 7/2009 /2010 S/2008 LA.APP.249/2009;

1..A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009: LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011: LA.APP.295/2009; LA.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. 1138/2008; 4 5, LA.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.1 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Awa 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002,Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B)

2.2000 d No. Reserved on: December Ot 20IJ Pronounced on: January 06 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJW ASAN). • DliVENDBRKUMAR .....Appellant Through: .Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh -l.A.App.|\io ,ia95/.?.008& connectcd Appeals of Village Bharllial '.A.App.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan-LA.App No. 1.11/2010& connectedAppeal.';of Village Pochanpur Page WI2 3 of 29 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout anc Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesfor appe (in R-2-14,38, 41-46, 49, 50.-69,73,' versus UOl & ANR .52/2010

56./20I0 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & LA.APP. r.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. [A.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. Respondents rhrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate Avith Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitriio Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for DOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appea • filed by UOL Mr.VirendraSingh,Advocatein R-6^,7] & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocjates for DDA. LA.APP. Ll/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. LA.A.PP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP.22L/2010 ' LA.APP.223/2010' LA.APP. LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 296./2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 351./2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.y\PP. LA.APP, 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 406/2010 • LA.APP, 407/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. 724/2010 l..A,APP, 725/2010 LA,APP. LA.APP, 729/2010 LA,APP, 731,/2010 LA,APP, LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. LA.APP, 286/2010 .LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & C.M.No, 964/2011 (Cross-objec-.;ions) lant 5, 76) 1/2010

55./2010 70/2010 226/2010 81/2010 285/2010 294/2010 ^15/2010 19/2010 53/2010 58/2010 59/2010 5,3/2010 :)8/2010 22,/2010 ?6/2010 7i2,/2010 82,8/2010 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417 dated 13.12 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Awar 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND 2000 J No. I.A.App. No. .1.19.')/ZOOS& connectRd Appeal.?of Villagn BharthnI IA,App. No. 29'!//010 & conndctod Appealsof VillageBijwasan !J\,App.IMo. l.lj/.iOlO & connected Appcjalsof VillagePochanpur , l-age 4 of 29 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18 Pronounced on: January 06 I.A.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUM)' 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 4' 44 to 49,59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advoccitefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64,65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through; Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatew-'^th Mr SanjayKumar Pathak,Mr.Mohitra Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,,Advoccites for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP J.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.Al'P. LA.APP. -LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 111/2010 . 160/2010 . 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010

466./2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 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 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011

485./2011 525/201] 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I--A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/20 n-591/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. i.A.App. No. 1195/2008&conncctfidAppealsofVillageBharlhal LA.App. No. 294/2010&conneclfidAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App No 111/2010& connectedAppealsof VillagfiPochanpur Page S 0 2011 2012 56/2010 15/2010 50/2010 270/2010 06/2010 93/2010 ^12/2010 ^34/2010 35/2010 57/2010 58/2010 18/2010 64/2011 19/2011 29,/2011 22/2011 35/2011 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/20.02-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,D({lhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

06.01,2012 1• Since the giounds on which enhanceinentofthe conipensat sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are idei thcreiorewith the consentof learnedcounsel for the parties pres the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertainijig to NotificationNo.F.10(3())96~L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,re to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'Dvi^arkaP //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct. 894, pcitaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block compiisingof thirteen Revenue Hstates includingvillages in question, i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid /illagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e.. Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAlA'ard , No.30/2002-2003granting compensation ^13.82 lacs per acre IMock A (level field —with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acn; for Block'B'(without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentof marketvalue oftheii' acqi

¶3vi LA.App. IMo. 1195/2008& connectGdAppeals.ofVillageBharthal. LA.App, IMo. 29'i/?.0.10&connRcledAppealsof VillagGBijwssan lA.App. No. .111/2010&connGctfidAppealsof VillagePochsnpiir p g^ dated ion IS itical, int at ating and •lase- .ih ;hree ired agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide imp judgment had enhanced compensation @ ?15.00 lacs per acre f appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per ac their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; wl' refcrences relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sou the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of! Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have 18 of • ugned or the re for ereas, ght by jjpees sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Karnataka Housing Board Land Acquisition Officer, Gada Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai ra. State ofGoa lA.App. No. .115.')/7.008& connccled Appeals of Village.Sharthai l.A.App.No. 7.94/2010 &• connected Appeals of ViilaRG Bijwasan iA.App. No 1] 1/20.1.0 & connnctiid Appeals of Village Pochanpur Pag meer, Am\,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

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

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaigaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DFJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Jlaryana & Ors., 2010(9) SeALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SeALl'i 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. SMe of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCX: 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003' titled as Smt Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabhd & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsihhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, 7 of 29 Gujarat ami Ann, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana'State Indiistrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175;RisalSingh& O. UnionofIndia& Ann, 2006 (89)'DPJ527 (DB);LaiChandvs. tlnion ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; Genera!Manager, Oil and , Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiMvanbhaiPate! and Am% (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937:.Mirmt Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) TO SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia. & 176(20] ]) DLI 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSin^' Delhi DevelopmentAuthority &• Anr., decided on 24.04.2008, Prakash(dead)by LMs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpa! & Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP,, No.656/2008titled as SusMi Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

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

(I70)DLT371. On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguingcounsel for the appe:iants that the locationand situationol the acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which mujt be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperit»d of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near foture alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway'lineof•Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on-theeasternside ofthe railwayline Is the .tGI Airport,New E>e]hi LA.App. No. lia5/2008&coiinectndAppealsofVillage Bharihai l,A.App. No. 291/2010&conncctnd/\pp(!alsofVillage Bijwasan l.A.App.No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagoPochanpur p. , , and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road lO'O 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 Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned counsel for the appellants .that norlhern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extersion of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat ^ Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpur'vere also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-(]ity. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslm-apto highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.-S.Maan,learned counsel foi' the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has ^ illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spitel of Notification of 16^'' October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agriculturaF to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land of VillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24^'' October,1944.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been v^/rongly discarded by the ReferenceCourt by relying upon P, I AA.App. No. 1195/;'.008& connGctadAppnalsofVillage Bharthal l.A.App"No.?.94/?.010& conneclndAppealsofVillage Bijwasan . lA.App. fvlo. in/'iOlO & connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur Pago 9 of ;!3 I-A.App lA./\3pp, l-A.App Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ore, ('1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in it[; later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryam& Ors., 2010(9) S' 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adj keepmgmview tlie developmentin the area overaperiodof tiir the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if aft acquisition,ifthe autlioritiesdo not put tlie land to any use, it wojdnot mean thatthereis no buildingpotentiahty.

¶10Rehanco was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma.learnedcounsel fir the appellantsupon the seven SaleDeedsofVillagePochanpurto higliight thatthe sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplarscannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued becauseof any special advantages'andas per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjmtiMoluDessai«, Stateoffioa <mdAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplarsought.o be taken as representingthe market price of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appel mts are the comparablesale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupontheminimumrates/circleratesfor detenninins,the marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. '1. Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquiredland was sough Mi.R.Cjrodara,learned counselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe DO rates fixed by tlie Government and also on the basis of | determinedrates fixed by the Governmenti«r'allotmernof alten plots in the yeai-2000-2001.Keepmgin view the location,situation :ale u.dged e and tJie b}/ L& )rc-late and poicniialiiyof the acquired land, dctenninationof its maiicet value is Z """""""•""'"I NC. 11J/.(.10&connmedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pa!?e 10ol2g sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis ofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of -the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

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

23.10.2002 being fl.aM>ed 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 facl that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates^of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 A'Vas issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid: down by variousdecisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar.2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining the valueofthe land under.acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasas per the law established by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale DeedshoM'inghigher rate should,not be disregardedin iy\.App.No. 119:j/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage liharlhal • LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage liijwasan LA.App. Mo. Ul/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur . case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Mohi Dessai V5. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while •adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land, is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and 13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the laid down by the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court including in Subh Ram v\y. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of 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 respectofthe 74^^ amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a m.unicipalarea and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there.. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR. Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of India and refused to consider thefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price thai a willing purchaser would,pay for. the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent 'No. .2 'had also LA.App. No.1195/2008 & connecled Appeals of Village Bharthal •kA.App. l\!o. 29^/?.010& connecled Appealsof Village Biiwa.san ^\.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur Page 12 f 29 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about X2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthe possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of IJ^•varka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) Ignored Notificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24:10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityof the said land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 itwas held that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe 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 buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portionoj the land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat die appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with, the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchof appeals.

¶14.Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfoftthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof !.A.App,No. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal App. Mo. 794/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l.A'.App,No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 13 c n f 29 urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the chgnge in land use has been consideredin MaheshDaitatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapi!Mehra (Major General)& Ors, Vs, Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre. DeterminedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market value ol the accjuired lands. Ihus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the accjuiredlends is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section5I-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence ioi deteiminationof the market value unless and until the same is pioperly connected with the land in question and element of special lancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be cons:dered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Saijpai ^ Ors vs. India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr,,

(z009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushi! Kumir w. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explainedby producingin evidence the ^eller LA.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsof Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010& connected Appealsof Village Bijwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 1 of 29 and the purchaseras no prudentperson havinglaiowledgeof tht; usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahiglierpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang. Beas, relied upon "y the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decison of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been:followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin Sushi!Kumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So fai as potentialityol the land is concerned,it was urgjd by Mr.SanjayPoddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectoisthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixirg the minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmc^ntas on ] Apiil, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @\2Vo per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been errone;)usly determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (s.ipra) 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 impuaned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementb> the ReicrenccCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while grar.ting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cioss objectionsto the aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon 1coord and the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparablelandis the p.ricepaid by willingpurchaserto awiljmg LA.App. No. n9;i/2008&connpctGciAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageI3ijwa.san l-A.App. No. l.l.f/2010&connectedAppealsOf VillagePochanpur Page 15 0 29 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionofpotentialvalue ofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. StMte of Hasya\a& Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because ofits explosivepopulation;

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

(iii) possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants ofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsorthe likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose; existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developed residential extensions in thevicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired land; benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which m.ay become available to the occupiersof buildings,if built on the acquired land; and lands around the acquired,land,or the acquired land itself being in demcmd for building purposes, to specif) afew. "

¶18The potentialityof land for the purposeof developmentas alsc for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose rv; rv/y 5aid for, f 29 l/^.App. No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharthal l.^.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan l4-App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 16 c i . which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subseduent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra).While reiteratingthe relevant factors for determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the.exemplarsof small pieces of land nilied upon by.theappellantscould not be a groundto discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepiecesof land were not available.

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

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

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burdein of proving the true marketvalue of the acquiredland is on the State l/ho has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensaltion awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of] the Apex Court inKiran Tandon (Supra)can be referred to with advantaje, . Apex Courtin VaUiyammal (Supra),while takingnote ofthe fact ; that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of resideilial colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai (Sujira) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App. No. 1195/2008&'connectedAppoalsofVillage Bharlhal lA.App. No. 291/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage BIjwssan 1-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur p^gp "The legal position is thai: even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the m.arketprice. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to.. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observat pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands n by the Apex Court in Chimlha Fakim Patil (Supra), which ar^ ^ follows:- "// is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land, under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactionsproximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place betyveen a. willing vendee and the willing vendor Mfhich. 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 lane ^ reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oii andNaturalGas Corporation

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Prim.arily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for deyelopm.ent in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, yvithoutany sudden spurts or jumps: lA.App. Mo. 3.1.95/2008& connoctsdAppfialsofVillage Bhartlial i.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connccted .Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. l]l/201oa connecled Appeals of VillagePochanpur Page 18 ons ade ? as as f 29 On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a nominal rate of l%o 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 urhan/semi-urbanareas is about 10%) to 15%> per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5%.to 7.5%)per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the 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 applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value byproviding appropriate escalation over the proved .market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale trcmsactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to .a, neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, m.ay become unsafe and unrelia.ble standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe m.arket value of a land, acquired-in '1992, adoptiiig the annual increase method with reference to a sale or LA.App. No. 1195/2008 conncclGdAppealsof VillageBhartha! LA.Apo. No. 29'1/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwa.san I.A.App No..1.1.1/2010& connected Appeals of VillageFochanpur acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the Vate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom, the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease. "

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin SMe IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by ado]3ting comparativesales methods.What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "Whendtfferentcategoriesoflands (or lands yvith different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes-felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshould be avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshoiddbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification." ^5. IJndisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and arcaind •acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the perioi in questionaie not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyre lied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven 5ale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had puichased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which variedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)wjich are basicallybetween one set ofco-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsc Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasan Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue; of the landin the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to be Answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Detds LA.App. No. 11.95/2008a coniiectGd".ppealsofVillageBharthal LA.ftpp.No. 234/20.10&conncctGdAppealsofVillage Bijwasan I..A,App. No. .111/20:0&connectedAppealsof VillagePocha.npur Page 20 of ng, d 6 (Iix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.Itwas dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired hnd in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treited as disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in questioi. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has nJt been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedirom him as to why he had agreedto pay such a high pr ce for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha maim Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of lant^ at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedc March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008ti Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011•and in LA No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decid

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof \ Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe t as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired was changedmuchprior to their acquisition,but it has come in evi ' that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetil acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands wei developed lands. No prudent person haying knowledge of prev LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillagG Bharthal , • LA.App, No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App. [Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page ^1-of29 )n 25"^ led as App. d on illage •eated lands dence their. c not 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 (J^x.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-]/ll) relied upon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosing exorbitantpri(M3 of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"' January,20(K), it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (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 lanes m question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be consideredas to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developedlands and Prc-Detcrmined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lanc|s m question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredIpds highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P, Ram Reddy and Ors. R Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad, Urban Developi^tent Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land,with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood lA.App. Mo. 119:i/Z008 & connected.Appeals of VillageBharthal I.A.App. No.29'?/2010 & connccted Appeals of Village Biiwaiian lA.App. No. 1..1..1/J.01.0& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur Page 22of29 orwhetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland, with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acqidred lands becomes available, then M^ha.t could be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired land with re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to M'hich it was put and increaseits value by ^ « small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidenceof sales,of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the diffieultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged b}' the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Ctand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of\ the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Chand (Supra), a coordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App, No.,11.9!3/2008& conncctpdAppaalsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 291/20.10& conncclodAppealsof Village Bijwasan I.A.App.No. 111/20.10&connecledAppeal.';ofVillagePochanpur Pagp 23 pf 29 the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question. j2. Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressivein( method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisit the year 1984 mVillageBharthaland other villagesfor developm Dwarka Phase-I. It was sougiit to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the yeai 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaid,escalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictiJim of the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland'onlywhen the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that i1 may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,if the gap is ot 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 Phaserllis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate I.A.App. No. 119!i/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwa.'san l7\.App.No. lU/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pgge x. ;rease :)f the on of 3nt of of 29 escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previou; years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel foi lespondent/cioss-objectorhad urged that the Reference Cou gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted cooidinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum; After having perused the decision in Sushi!Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by i-elying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum.In this \iew of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Govern minimumprice ofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the Reference is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%o per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationofthe minimumprice mr the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April,"2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedoi not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultura land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed bv the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceaj^ed to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Nofificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotification,ofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not suffici the it has as a Tient's Court 3nt to lA.App. No. ]195/2008& connectedAppenlsofVillageBharth:il lA.App. No. mp.QlQ&, conncclcdAppealsofVillage Bijwa.san l-A.App. No. ]rx/A010&connectedAppealsof VillageI'ochanpur Page ;of29 presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for be consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Sv^ami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rathci, it emerges from the evidence on record that till issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityol'the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidencJ to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplai of VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlaids and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesdd sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of-he Apex Court in Haryana State hidimrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded foi-the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of t/ic minimum price lixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally,factors in the rise of price due to higher :ing sale the hen irea potcntiality.Taking note of the feet that there is a gap between wh a.t IA.App, Mt), 1195/2008&connactedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. IMO. 294/2010&connectedAppeal?of VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur would be expected to be the market growth and what the mark(;t had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalprice has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands inJai Singh (Supra)as well as inSmhil Kumar (Supra)and I find I no reason to take a different view than the one which had been tak coordinate Bench of this Court in tiie aforesaid cases of Ji (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered, view that the Reference Ccurt in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasaii has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question. iMndingof the ReferenceCourtin matterof VillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potential and the situation ol the acquired lands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectof higherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from Nli-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,PartI and Part11, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account,of aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,cei-|;ainly I assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above it arket value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands LA.App. No. .1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 17\,App.No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof VillageBijvy/asan LA.App. No; 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePoctianpur PaBe2|7of29 .en by s the settled legal position aptly higl,lightedby tlie Apext Court in ; NcmsherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in theseworde:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting ur buildingsmthe immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficient'to hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto. determine its market value takinginto account the increasein priceattributable tosuch buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fa6t that it would be very difficultto prol^idea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exaetnesean never be achieved in the matters of:assessing fair compensation it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying tire Government'smin tnum pnees for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par. with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bhartl,al and Village Bijwasan.However,while relying upon the decision in sL// fumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abov»the (iiarkctvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advant' providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin ques

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarduig10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto VillageBharthaland Vil age Biiwasa.1.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par^lith the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof LA..App. No. 1.195/2008&conneclodAppealsof VillageBharthal A.App, Mo. mUOW&conncctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan •A.App. No. .111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ages ion. Page 28 o 29 1^0 the appellants of Village Poclianpur are also allowed to the indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands extent these oJ-three villagesin questionis dptermined@?16,50,000/- Category 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per bpi?forthe Cat^^ lands in queslion. br the -V

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation siatutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explai the judgjnent reported in Sunder vs\ UOI 2001 (93) DLT 56 gianted,exceptlor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe a Jor vN'hichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensation be paid, 1hcse appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts

¶421he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare dispos in the aforesaid tenns with direction to the Registry to remi compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Reg General ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decrees be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb G awarded, ned in are Lppeal, shall 3d of : 'the strar leets r'" - i'oi /: o'TT '% I.A.^Rp,Mo. 1195/2008&conncctodAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A.APP. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur •i- %• N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SliARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AniitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, 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.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates foi respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanld and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with 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.BanlceyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharaia and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an applicationfor seeking typographical correction Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the noti in >s LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page w t oftlie application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicaleiror pointed out by the respondenti" decision of 6 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of aloiesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bij-l' whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by lea counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this apphcatic allowedand it is orderedthattliereferenceto 'perbigha'in parag, no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Neces con-ectioilsbe carriedoutforthwith. In viewof the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof m the the Lia', •ned )n is •aph sary L GAUR) JAIVUARY12, 2012 pkb •AApp.No. 1195/2008 Page Xjy-

' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November , 20li Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 + LA. APP. 1111/2008 MAHENDER SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate .Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA &.ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.NavIin 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