Sarupey @ Sarup Singh v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vj. Union of India & Anr. (Sf?NIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06,2012 pkb / .•r \{Jf % Reserved on: November IS, 2011 Fronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID.A) LA.y\PP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA ..... Appellant :rhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit-Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita ., . Maan, Mr.R.S.Verraa, Mr^Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Toraar, Advocates, I Mr.Rohtas,Advocate... : Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S'.Rautela, Advocate N4r.S.K.Routavid'Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari. Advocates. Mi-.PankaJVivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav.,Mr.IDeepakKhosla, Mr.Samit Khosia and Mi\Dhahanjay Mehlawal, Advocates. Mr.H.S.Raui.ela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Ads'ocate Mr.Sandeep'Thakhnr. Advocate i Mr.A'tul '1 Tipathi-,-AdvocaLe. : Mr.N.S.Negiand-Mr.H.S.R'aulera,(Advocatesior respondent in appeals-filed by UOl) versus r • ! LRMIQN 01' INDIA& ANR. Respondents ' IhroLigh: Mr.SanjayPoddav,Senior.'Alh'ocatewith Mr.Sanjir) , Pathak, Mr.Moh.itrao..vadhcvvand M.S.Na.vlinSwain. . • : Ms.K.Kaumudl Kiran. Advocates for T.AC./UOI Mr.AJay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni. lVtr,lViukcsh I Kumar, Mr S.K.Sethi, xVIr.Pavva.nMathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocaie for DDA !.A.A.Pi'.412..'2008& CM.No,4096/200.S (Cross-Ql-)jectioi]s),.f.A.APP.4:i2/2008; LA.APP.4fi3/2008;LA.APP.688/2()()8.& 04.Mo.5990/2010(Cross-Objections); 1-A.AIT.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.701/2008& C!\1.No,5]0/2009 (Cros.s-Obiectioa:;):

1... APP.768,''2008; i'.A.APP.770/2008; ^'(l, 1.iy.'i/,':008& connpcledAppealsofVillagi;Bha'!,liyl !A.Ar.ip. N;), /91/?,OpO& rorinuri.edAppoal.sofVillatjt;Biiwawn IA.App. 11l-OnaO&connoaodAppealsof ViilaRC:l"-ochanpiii-Pajn, i oi Z9 V ••Jl-LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No'.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009,(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008'& CM.No.611/2009' (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APPJ777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008.& CM.No,940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APPJ83/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APiP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Clbjections);LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & ;CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); •LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM"No.519/2009•(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008;. LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & , CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA'.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1031/2008,& CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.ApP. 1046/2008 LA.APP. 1047/2008;LA.APP.l 048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420;2009 (Cross-Qbjections); LA.APP.1050/2008 LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008 LA.APP.l053/2008 & 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.752/2pll (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No. 1557/2011 (Cross.Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008, & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0bjecnons); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.ARP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.Nb.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081,/2008 & 'CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.AI^P.-1084/2008&' CM.lfd.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086,/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008-(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093,.'2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA;APP.l108/2008 & CxM.No;3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);, LA.APP. 1111/2008; LA.APP. 1112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.'1113/2008& .CM.No.'3826/2009 •(Crosk)biections);LA.APP.l115/2008; LA.APP.1116/2008; LA.APP.l121/2008; LA.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 &• CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); !,A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM,No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.A'PP.1133/20,08;LA.APP.1135/2008'& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.li40/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP. 1157/2008; LA.APP. 1158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 16172008; LA.APP.l 166/2008 LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.l 168/2008 LA.APP.1170/20,08;LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.ll"72/2008;LA.APP.l173/2008 LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP. 117,9/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008 LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008&•CM.No'.6933,/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP.1186/2008& CM,.No.7013/2009 I./V.App. No, 3195/7.008 a conneclGd Appeals of Village Bharthal , • • I.A App. No. ?.9i/20,10 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A,App. No, :L1,3,/.>nlO& connectecl Appeai,sof Village PochaMDur' Page of 29 y % •(Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APPJl193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.l195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No".6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP.1223/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Obje,ctions);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008', LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008;,LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; ' LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; ' LA.APP.39/2009 LA.A'PP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.7103/2009, (Gross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.12172009; LA.APP.i35/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009 LA.APP. 140/2009

1.A. APP. 162/2009 LA.APP; 197/2009 LA.APP.202/2009 (Cross-Objcctions) LA.APP.211/2009 LA.APP.224./2009 (Cross-Objections) 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 l.A.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 .LA. APP. 13 8/2009 LA:APP. 144/2009 LA^APP. 190/2009 LA. APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA;APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009;- LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA. APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245./2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; ' LA.APP.447/2009; LA. APP,466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; ,liA.APP.513/2009; LA. APP.45/2010; LA.APP. 13 9/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA. APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.223/2009 CM.No.7206/2009 LA. APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA. APP;45 8/2009 LA.APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA. APP.5 06/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA,APP.567/2009 'LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.13/2011;^j^^g^P.l138/2^7? LA.APP.l176/2008 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L&B7LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B)' Reserved on: December

¶08201 ] Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BIJWASAN). : 1)H.VEN13ER KUMAR ...... Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh lA.App. iMo & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No.294/2010 & connRctcidAppeals of VillageBIjwasan LA.App, No. 1.11//.010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu.' versus Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Roiitray, Advocates for appellant ^(in R-2-14,38,•41-46, 49, 50-69,73, 75,76) UOI & ANR LA.APP; i:,A.APP. ]_,A.APP'. LA.APPi. LA.APP;. LA.APP'. LA.APP:. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lA.APP. L-A.APP. LA.APP. LA-.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray,Advocates in appeals • filed by UOI. Mr.Yirendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharraa, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U/2010,., LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 "LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010: LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 . C.M.No. 964/2011 (C LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP.'3 57/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 • LA.APP.'407/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP, 725/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LAx.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 Iross-objections) 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. & 51/2010 55/2010' 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/20.10 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010

722./2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated ,13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,Village Bijwasaii,Delhi) AND lA.App. No. .1.19.'j/2008& connectRclAppealsof VillagnBharthnI ^LA.App. No. 29'!/?.010& connectedAppealsofVillage BIjwasan !.A.App.No. •Uj/?-010 & connecU'dAppcialsof VillagePochanpur . Page 4 of ^9- • % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP'.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.SpIankiand Mr.iS.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49,59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64,65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant inR-22) versus • IMION OF INDIA & ANR ; Through; • Respondents l\4r.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain. Advocates for UOI/LAC , Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for dda; : LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.: LA.APP,^ LA.APP.. LA.APP.^ LA..4PP.. LA.APP., L.A.APP., LA.APP. LA.APP. ill 1/2010 1160/2010 .228/2010 :254/2010 292/2010 ^307/2010. 395/2010 420/2010 ,466/2010 :63 7/2010 ^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

1.65/2010 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 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lA.APP: LA.APP. LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.A.PP., LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 •577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 •129/2011 521/2011 526/2011-591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 156/2010 . 215/2010 . 250/2010 . 270/2010 . 306/2010 .393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011

429./2011 522,/2011 535/2011 LA.App. No. j.l95/?,008&cbnncclGdAppealsofVillageBharthal •LA.,'\pp. No, 29'?/20'l0&;connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA,App No 111/2.010&,connecledAppealsofVillagePochanpur. Pap,G 5 of 29 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE Mil. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % •

06.01.2012

¶1• Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical thcieioTc with the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoiificationNo.F.10(36)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous•Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPlw.se- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 189'4, pertaining to vast tract of agricuhural-land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, ' i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

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

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentof marketvalue ofthen-acquired LA.App, No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals.ofVillaf>eBharthal. l.A.App. No. ?.9'V2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. .111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Paf;G6of29 agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ^13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

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

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

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

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

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors w. State oj Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003'titled as • • Smt, Indu Khorana V5., Gram Sabha.& Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficerd Anr ra. M,K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) - 7 see 714; Thakarsihhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, lA.App. No. .11&:)/Z008fi connc;cU!dAppealsof VillageBharthai l.A.App. No. 7.94/2010 &• connucto.d Appeals of ViilaRe Bijwasan lA.App. No 1]1/20.1.0& connoct(!ciAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' ' . ' • Page 7 of29 i \/ Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175;MsalSingh Sc Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, OH and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs.. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra^,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, ^' 176(20]1) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. 'Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr.,,decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead) by LRs and Ors vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008-titled as SushilKumar vs. Union of India, decided on

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

(170)DLT371.

¶6On the strengthofthe aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it ,was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be fust undeistood in order to apprecia.tc its potential which must be •adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near iiiturealone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway'line of'Village IMijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi l-A.App, No. 113.^/2003& connectedAppealsofVillage Bhaiiha! IA.App. No. 29/1/2010& connectedAppealsofVlllagGliljwasan I.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillafjePochanpur p-e8 if 29 •V and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farai Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands of VillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I Eind the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. .. Attention was drawn to the aks sizraslm2L-pto highlight that the boundary oT Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for 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 spite of Notification of 16^'^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed .from agriculturaT to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infact.the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceasedto be rural in view of the Notificationof 24^" October,.1994.

¶9..It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Roiit, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama .lA.App.No..119.'5/2008& conneclGdApppaLsof Village Bharthal !.A App..No.294/2010 & connectcd Appealsof VillaBG Bijwasan tA.App. No. .1,11/20.1.0Si connGclodAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pago 9 of29 V Reddi&Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingmview the developmentin the area over aperiodof time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highliglit that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of tlie said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceGouit, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any spccial advantages'and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluOesmi vs. StateofGo" andAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of tlie land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefbre, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupontlieminimumrates/circlerales for detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentofmaitetvalue of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.C5odara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates hxcd by tlie Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmem of alternate plots in the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,sitriationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is LA.APP. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA,App. No. 294/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillageBIjwasan l-A.App No. lia/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur •V sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalldiaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Dctcrrained Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

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

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

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice . dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates of land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section_5 of the Land. AcquisitionAct, 1894.was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid. doM'n by various decisionsincludingin one of the more recent -decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(3)see 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 disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court'whereasas per the law established by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fa.kira Patil versus Special Land.. AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Llon'bleSupreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate slwiddnot be disregardedin l./v.App,No. 119:j/2008& conncctedAppealsofVillage liharlhal W.App. No. 2.94/2010& connnctndAppealsofVillagG Uljwasan .lA.App.No. 1.11/2010&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur jg •,V ^ / case, the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Mohi Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should he 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 laM> laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. 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 Government for 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 M^hich the Municipal Corporation Act was - amended and the area, where the land is situated, y\>as deemed a municipal area. a.nd the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there.. No•Pan.cha.yat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR. Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vi'. Union of India and refused to consider thefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser yvould.pay for, the-subject land.

i) Ignored the fact' that Respondent No. 2 had also l.A.App. No. 1135/2008 & connccted Appeals of Village Bharlhal l.A.App. No. 291/ZOlO& cannGcledAppealsof VillageBijwa.san LA.App. No. 111/2010& connoclpdAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 12of29 V . • •: auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh, and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. . j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land, was acquiredfor development purposes of l>yvarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and BharthaJ was changed and. these areas ceased to be agricultural and came nov,> under the urban boundaries of.Delhi State. ' 0 Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality ofthe said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was heldthat thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe land has got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land beingloccupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion oj 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 Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsinthesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfof the appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnaridYadav, Advocatethatthe effectof LA.App. No. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppnalsofVillage Bijwasan l7\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pagel3of29 vy urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors, Vs. Union of India cS Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Deterniined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Ihus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquired lands is soughtin these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Lcmd AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence lor determination of the market valtie unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely, nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai Lai ^ • vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Alnn,

(z009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller CA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage BIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' Pago 14 of 23 u • • > and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO ratcs/Pre-DetcrmmedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court ni Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidmateBenchofthis Court in SushilKumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So fai as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by _j(| Mi.SanjayIoddai, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Couil, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted , - thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired •lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% V per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaid extent. '

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgmeni,the evidenceon Iecoid and the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe true marlcetvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by vviUingpurchaserto awilhng I.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connoctedAppealsofVillageBharthal -A.App. No. 294/2010&connectncJAppoalsof VillageBijwa.san l,A.App.No. 111/2010a connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur /-I X /O v seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing'the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haiyajta .cS 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 kindof importanceor because oj its explosivepopulation; •

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

(lii) possibilityofobtainingM>ater and electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsorthe likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin .- the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

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

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland , •itself being in demand-for building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶181he potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large,numberof factors. For the said puipose,the Court may not only have' to, bearin mind the purpose for IA,App, No. .11.95/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A,App, No, 7.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageIBijwasan LA.App. No, 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur ' which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land, Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands, and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the" agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammai (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction • of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in Anjani Mohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App. i\io. 1.1.95/2008& connoc!.ed Appoals of Village Bharlhal 1A.App. Mo. 294/2010 & connEcledAppsaisof VlllagfiBijwasan .LA.App. IMo. 111/M1.0& conneciQdAppealsofVillage;Pochanpiir Page 17ofzg V/ "772e legal position is that even where there are several exemplars M>ith reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will he considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. 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.. " 22, It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations • pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made I by the Apex Court in Chimlha Fakira PatU (Supra), which are as . foIloNvs:- "// is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands ' situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place belM'een a willing vendee and. the willing vendor which, coiild. be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natuni! Gas Corporation Lid,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under;- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land, for developm.ent in the area, and-the demand for land in ,th.e area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, yvithout any sud.den spurts or jumps. 1A.App. No. ] 195/2.008 & connccled Appnals of Village Bharthal i.A.App. No. 2.94/2010 & connccted Appeals of VillaRe Bijwa.san LA.App. No. 1] 1/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagePdchanpur On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In som.epockets in big cities, due to rapid, development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2%) per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases-in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum., the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%oper 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 woidd depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved .market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contem.poraneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable,lands in the neighbourhood. The ' said method is reasonably_ safe yvhere the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour to-fiveyears. 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, may become unsafe and unreliable standard, where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the m.arket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual, increase method with, reference to a sale or lA.App. No. il.9:)/200!?& connfictndAppealsofVillage,Bhartha! . ' iA.App, No, 2,91/2010 & conncicted Appeals of Village Eljwa.san LA,App No,.11,1/2010& connficted Appeals of VillagePachanpyr o acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence ofvarying periods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts inprices affecting the very standard ofincrease." • "

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Hmyana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods: What was said by the Apex Court in HSIIDC (Supra) is as under:- ' ^ ''Whendifferentcategoriesof lands (or lands with different suuationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for frmning of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a. uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification." i5. Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., Radha SwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturallalid in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ^52 lacs to ^"62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)which are basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswas situatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required ' to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds •) • . _ • _ I.A.App.No. 1.19S/2008& coniiectcdAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 2S1/20.10& co'nnectGdAppualsofVillage Bijwasan 1-A.App.No. :l:U/20:0&connnctcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Page 20 of 29 ' (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning tl3.ereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)dii not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale, exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The specialjieed of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pocharipurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been ' brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited h'om him as to why he had agreedto pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha S'vvami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^®^ March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarofVillage Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated - as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters,though the land use ofthe acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition. Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pag021(3f2!) u' • marketprice of the land in questionwould pay such a high price unless and until such purchaseis meantfor specialconsiderationand so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4 to lix.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court.

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

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whethc]- adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Dctermined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P, Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under '72. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvalueof the acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby ' sale ofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood IA.App, No. .1.135/2008& connocled.AppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/20.10& connocledAppealsofVillageBljwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpiir or whether it he the determination ofthe market vahie ofthe acquired land, with building potentiality with reference to theprice fetched by sale of buildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to befetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon byany oftheparties, with reference to theprice which theplots couldhavefetched ifsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidenceofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the marketvahie of the acquired land yvith re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto ^h£ actual use to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard-to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound, out according to its actual user since resort to the method 'of giving increased,value for such buildingpotentiality arises only when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land, indicatingthat there was no immediate d.em.a.nd., as such, for bidldingplots even ifform.ed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by m the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same,and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supia),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 Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No..l.l9;)/?.008&connnctGdAppealsof VillageBharthal .^^.App,No. 291/20.1.0&connoclcdAppeaksof VillageBijwasan LA.App. IMo. 111/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur PaBe23of23 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that .the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase . method would be relevant ,criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the l.and AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by,the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt pi'ogressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,if the gap is of only of a few years,ma).' becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ol sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate li\.App.No. : 19S/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pagp 24 of 29 i escalationoverthe marketvalue ofthe nearbyland of the previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per amium, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Smhil Kumar (Supra), 1 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 relying upon Sushi/ Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

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

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum'rates of agriculturalland pertammg to the-Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24'" October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto I.A.App, Ko. ]19r)/2dG8&connectedAppealsofVillageBhartlinl iA.App. No. .^JM/2010&, conncctndAppealsofVillageBIjwasan I^.App.No. ]1..1/2010&connectcdAppealsof VlllaBG Pochanpur u Or presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there beingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang.Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosetliatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rathci, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasemprice due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land mVillage Pochanpui'to areligiousinstitiitionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-l/H)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsoiRadha Swami Satsang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(lix.PW-l/lI) are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of ViUage Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/ll) cannofbe treated to be sufOcient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances, therefore,in view of Uie afofe-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Induspia!DevelopmentCorporation (ffSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Goverm™"tfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what iA.^pp,No.lu/20.10&connectedAppealsofVlllagepdch.npt., • Page 26 of 2.9 would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jal Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jal Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38lliis Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. I'inding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGl 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 NH-8 Irom Shiv M.urti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part 11, 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,certainly assumehigher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the l.A.App. No. 1191/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal lAApp. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsof\/illaj5eBljvi^asan lA.App. No; 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsofVlllaRePochanpur ' ' ; " ' PaEn27of29 I settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in 3Iirza NcmsherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buddings in the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accoimtthe increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringtlio fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in vieW of the fact tiiat exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is ,broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum-prices for the agriculturallands for computingfte fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan.However, while relyingupon the decision in SmkU Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby (he ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityIn the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspeilainii^^to VillageBharthal and Village , Bywasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appella,ttsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof .l.U/20K,&connmeclAppeal,sof VillagePochanpur Page 2S of 29 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these lands in question. \1^-^' threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per_]]i2Jforthe Category 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per bipha'forthe Category 'B'

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Simder vs\ UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are gianted,except lor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid, 'fheseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar Cjcnei-al ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb I.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connoclndAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. Mo. 2yi/?.0.;0&connccledAppealsof VillageBijwasan W.App. No. 1.11/7010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur (SUNIL GAUI'I) V' '"I'" r •• Pago 29 of 29 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSI-IARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mr.R.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S..Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentinappealsfiledby 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 OFINDIA& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand 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 seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6"^ Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 •'H:.'; .rrOV>- lif ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6^'^ Januaiy, 2012 is that in iDaragraph no: 40 of the aioresaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', - whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants;Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No! 1195/2008'be read as 'per acre'. Necessary .corrections be'carried out forthwith. In vjcwofthe aforesaid,this:applicationstandsdisposedof GAUR) JANUARY12, 2012 JUDGE pkb .A.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

0/ /O IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 1138/2008 SARUPEYalias SARUP SINGH Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin 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.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR