Chandan Singh & Anr v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. <r-r-sX: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm f f IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + RAJ SINGH tudament ludament Dri erved On: 19^" August 20 7 7 ivered On: SeotembRr. ?n 7 7 LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Objection) Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and . Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. Is. UOI &ANOTHER ... Respondents Through: Mr.SanjciyPoddar, Senior Advocate & lyir.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AND + LA.APP. 961/2010, No.12885/2011, LA.APP^-00 LA.APP. 1009/2010,O LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM f7^0^r0-^^-GM--N-Qfl34 1009/2010,CjA^^PP,_L010/2010,9 LA.APP. 1036/2010 & CM No.12865/2011,LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP. 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 LA.APP. 298/2011 LA.APP. 386/2011 LA.APP. 397/2011 163/2011 248/2011, 375/2011, 394/2011, 407/2011. 11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP. /LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09 2000 & Award.No,06/2002-2003,Village-BhalswaJahangir Puri) Ah D / r I + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011,, LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 244/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No. LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. /2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, 8/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, 15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. (Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PR>

¶1Whether the Reporters of to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporte /^Sec. dated

30.07.1998 & lage-Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri) ADEEP NANDRAJOG local papers may be allowed r or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

¶1I proceed with an apolog/ to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time then to a notification issued prior in poirt of time; but the reason is that learned counsel for land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to notification which was issued earlier in point of time.

¶2Land nrleasuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Bhaiswa Jahangir Purl was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatlers <r to a notification dated

15.09 2000 issued under Section of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, nannely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'., This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigh lakhs per acre i.e. fair market at ^13.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market value of the acquired a, which is equivalent to ^13.82 i/alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed 5sessment made by Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter, being LAC N 3.112A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or ?14,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well e s the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the Government as on

01.04.20C 0, notified vide Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destina :ions were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition compensation, did not grant ei Collector, while assessing ppreciation for the period from

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was is learned Reference Court gra sued on

15.09.2000, but ited appreciation for the said period of 165 days

(a) 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the price ?13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No!999/2010 & connected maters A %

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section of the Lard Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisition bearing No.18/2000-01 dal assessed fair market v ^2,33,333 per bigha which is acre.

¶6Dissatisfied with a Acquisition Collector, the land by a declaration under Section 1998. After following due Collector announced an award ed

12.03.2001, whereby he alue of the acquired . land at equivalent to ^11.20 lakhs per ssessment made by Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.l] Union of India, assessed the f lA/2008 titled Chandrawati 1/5. 3ir market value of the acquired land at - ?11,46,670/- per acre. The difference i in destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated

25.7.1997 question was issued on 30.7.1 Court granting enhancement interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment nr same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. Collector adopting the land rate with effect from

1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in 998 and the learned Reference

(g) 11% per annum for well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmat ers Page 4 of22 Court by way of the appeals arid cross objections mentioned above.

¶8On behalf of land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance WcS placed on following documentary evidence:-

(a) The rate notified b/ the: L&DO vide notification dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned' by nibit PW-4/1), , whereby it charge unearned increase in "esidential and, commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was. argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which, is stated to jswa jahangir Puri, was fixed eter or f2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of 17,96,200/- per acre. be close to village Bhaia at ^5830/- per square n^ acre and . it, was urged

(b) The rate charged commercial plot in Sanja ternis of the Resolution by MCD for allotment of f Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot developed plots to the square meter; and Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots Naga'r @ ^4,500/- per sqi transporters @ ?425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport . / are metre were urged to be material good evicience. Relying on th,ese r LA App.No.999/2010 & ebnnected mat;ers documents, learned cc argued that rate land comes to ^17,19,85 that even if 50% deduct! development costs, fo unsel for land owners stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fair marl<et value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made on account of the r undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to ?8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increi •annum, the fair market be ?24,76,592/- per acre

(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on the Rohini Residential Scher asing the same by 12% per value as of 15.9.2000 would for land owners also auction record of plots in ne in the year 1997-98 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying on the brochure of DDA pertaining to the year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met ng plinth area of 69 square e in Jahangir Purl at a price ranging between ?23.72 lakh to f28.4 lakh, which according to. learned col nsel translates to a price of n4,36,36,363 per acre counsel urged that suitable deduction col Id be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land,

(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ ?32,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, lat the price per acre comes 6,169/- per bigha. It was learned counsel urged th to ?56,93,163/- or ?11,£ & connected matiers A % contended that this sale after making a reas deed should be relied upon, onable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another- (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- pi5r acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied jell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a /hereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996(p ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that land was in the revenue estate of ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w ( village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o' the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996.

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay . appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir ^1,40,000 and urged that ever is to be given on said value. Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement tb sell ^oddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of I if 12% appreciation per annum the price as on the date of the notificationunder Section4 comes to n,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available in the same village, it would adjoining village or to adopt be imprudent to travel to the ;he price of developed liand for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters fixing the market value of undeveloped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed fair market value of the land at a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 so has learned Reference Court.

¶10It may be noted that wh Bn judgment was reserved in the August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition .App.No.266/2008 titled lai Sinah Vs. UP!.& Anr. in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response to the arguments of learned counsel for the land owners, the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand {Halqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoh . above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA Vs Union of India in which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl. His testimony w and Libaspur are situated, in ^ould reveal that village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the Eiast, villagesSamaipur Badii and Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of village jahangir Purl. o I \

¶12. I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published by Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on tJie eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, MamoorDur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took, place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah Vs. Union nf it was noted that there existed a langir Puri in the area which had village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 4<9i, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the year 1975-

¶76It has to be remembered that the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement of,slum and J.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA..App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah Vs. UOi & Ml which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment,has since been pronouncedby me on 23.8.2011, and I yvould highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in io revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Bawana, I had noted t - Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, , Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat topology of the area Page 9,of 22 constituted a 'V at the point! of intersection wliere G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtai< Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a common point, proceeding in different directions, at Sa.bzi Mandi. it needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereinabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1.

¶15In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notificationsissued in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on land owners have placed -para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunden-which learned counsel for reliance upon as noted in sut

¶21The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh is predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ?63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was js trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page10 of22 been held not to be rel fair mari<et value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated pay the price for the sail reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization" as per ister Annie, the secretary of ihat the organization had to d piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for requirement,of the organization and is being used a special for destitute women circumstance, personal t

¶22As held in the dec sions reported as 1995 (1) see .717 Land Acouisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. .e. there was 0 the vendee. isti Rohini &Anr (Refei^para 6) and 2009 (14) see 369 i^oiid. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acouisition Officer ansactions evidenced in a liered in evidence by virtue .A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for (Refer para 13) sale tr sale' deed which are ten of Section 51A of the L. reason there may which have led the buys be special circumstances to pay a higher price. The true test is the price wfiich a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller need by any special without being influe circumstancesor the fancy to buy a particularpiece of land. An informed bi studied the'market available' land in the yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all area; has understood • topology of the area anc the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair marl<et value of the lands in the area. I would be failing i Union of India had relied

20.5.2002, which was do not highlight that the upon the sale deed dated accepted by learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated

27.1.2003 where-underagricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ^17,74,109/ per acre as against th' ^63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre for Ex.PV e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28.89 V-1/3. The 2 sale deeds t % Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from t Reference Court, with \ reasons in para a reasons to , hold that advisably not be gooc reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the he reasoning of the learned vhich I concur, afore-noted bove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair marl<et value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer I would be failing not to note an unreported . counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya

19.12.2008 disposing o matter being LA.App.^ ecision cited by learned •eing decision dated a batch of appeals, lead

0.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. UP! & Qrs. It was highlightedthat the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a Ijancy for the said land and hence price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by t question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being laige, was accepted by the he Court and the price in Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th le instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair in the decision of the Di\ 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed or market value. The argument ignores the reasoning ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative therein was reduced by of the market value, but found that if the price 1/3'"', the price arrived at would be the same as would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds I produced by the Govern ?1,37,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ^2,15,160/- per bigha, froni the sum of .?3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 1993 a Section

¶4of the Land ment were giving a price of sale deed under ed the land gave the price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of f 1/3'"'' would be deducted ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995

16.11.1995 Court determinedfair market|alueas of the said datesat same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ?2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated appreciation for sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already contradiction in the vali the 2 sale deeds and th noted inherent e of the land price as per ijS itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."

¶16For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in present case also as reliable and good evidence to i . determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalswajahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ?18 lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ^5,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^15,70,000/- per acre as on

01.07.2003, it is difficult to comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ^15.7 lakhs per acre. I ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph of its decision, learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op special considerations n informed willing buyer without being influenced by particular land, and had thus not reliable evidence wherefr track of land had to be fixed.

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with ned that the said price was for •t the price settled between an an informed willing seller special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as om fair market value of a large issue in my decision dated 008 iai 5inah l/s. UP! & Anr. i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller being well-informed and there being a special feature qua the land and good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reiterate the same.

¶20As regards. auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, I do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the land owners concur with the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as LM Chand l/s. Union of India 2009

(15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots or flats by

¶21In my decision dated ;vidence relating to auction rates DDA. !3.8.2011 in LA.AppiNo.266/2008 iai Singh Vs. UOi & Ors.. I hE d extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case with eveloped plots were allotted by d DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in iai Singh's case are extracted hereunder:- reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DDA an

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same Der which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as the value of land in the s

¶30It is no doubt true, Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area most unreliable to determine Jbject cases. as held even by the learned with development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building po would be what would tentiality, but question be value to which building potentiality would translate itself.

¶31I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. #

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chancts case (supra) Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless was too inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be crystallized.

¶23I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Saijay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lease-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs ca:5e (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed discarded with reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I r where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^ 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topology of th(; area and as per the testimony ) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil and Burari are separated by t : village Burari is on the east of indeed plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri he outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and \ thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessing the fair in village Burari, which was c dated

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I notification dated

24.7.1998. notification dated

18.07.2005 n9,20,568/- per acre for CategoryAland and ^7,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. Ir assessed the fair niarket value market value of the land situated cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of lad considered material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA./appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. Vs. Union nf IndiR ^ Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60 d assessed the fair market value

580.82 per acre for Category A land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at lai. Singh's caset {supra), I had of land in 10 villages as unden-S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1PoothKhurd

7.8 2000 ?14.75 for Category 'A' fl4.3728 for Category 'B,'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 n4.75

¶3Bawana

7.8. 2000 ! n4.75 for Category 'A' n4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.c o o o, CN ^4.835 for .Category 'A' fl4.46413 for Category 'B' EA.App.No.999/2010 « -5. Narela

2.5 .2001 ^6.165 , for Category 'A' ?15.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶7Alipur

¶228.2001 ?16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 ^

16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ^16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.1 2.2001 ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ^18.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶271.2003 ?19.435 for Category 'A' n8.94:912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Ka an

27.: L.2003 fl9.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

¶27In lai Singh's case (su minimum land rates enliancec to time and found tfie same pra) I had also analyzed by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit of the & cojinected matters Government officers and Inad found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah Vs. UP! & Ml, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander l/s. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005//i^,^/7g/7Q^er 57/7(7/7 Vs. UP! & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was. determined oh 1993 to 1996 and in relation t various dates between the years :o the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under;- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the \/arious notifications issued from time to time by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying minimum pricefor agrici|lturallands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As ^4.65 lakhs per acre whi Df 27.4.1990 minimum price was ch rose to flO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e. Dws that due to urbanization, 1997 prices grows fairly rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years as of

1.4.2001. . It sh between the year 199C sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Gairafs case (supra), wl" above.

¶51I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gairai"s case. Discussing evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 village Holambi Kalan as Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 Court discussed valuation on basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized land price at ^9.5 lakhs method of land prices surrounding areas inci The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as ag per acre. Discussing the second of comparable lands in uding potentiality, in para onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCl Godowns had come ufj) and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to no,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered,the prices notified by the Government as per policy dated

1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. that the potentiality had been Government issued on w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at flO lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the pric s was fl0,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court w ^hender Singh's case, pertaining "ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential, commercial industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi had noted that notwit projecting la of the notification with concerned, virtually no c and on the issue of potentiality istanding Master Plan so nds theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which Division Bench was evelopment had-taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. para 49 above there is LA.App.No;999/2010 & connected matters As 1 have already highlighted in a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in Gairats caise % Mahender Singh's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a when prices rose by reality between 1990 and 1997 about

16.5% per annum thereafter extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to n to 11% per annum. One reason to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area-came to be developed, both residential, commercial industrial probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated. betvyeen 10% per annun could be that pursuant

¶53The empirical evic ence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely mean that ?6,09,850/- spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2 rned Reference Court has given . upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 fair market value of agricultural lands would be ?19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for ?5,39,690/- and ?70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would (^5,39,690/- + ?70,160/-) were ice ?17,74,109/- per acre as of

0.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than th e minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that Learned Reference Court has rightly a has relied upon the correct ev dopted the correct principle and dence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and, the date of the notification issued under m Section 4 of the Land Acquis further, enhance the compe disrniss all appeals and cross land owners or the Union of

¶29I leave the parties to 0^ ition Act and finding no scope to nsation or to reduce the same I objections, whether filed by the ndia. their own cost. bear SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters (PRADEEP NAINSDRAJOG) JUDGE

r $-28 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1010/2010 CHANDAN SINGH & ANR Appellants Through: Mr.N.S.Negl, Advocate. versus UOI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with l^^r.Sanjay Pathal<, Advocate for UOI. P CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG