Satyavrat v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm -T—r irxx^-si-s: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. i? '"v * • • IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ; ' ludament Reservp.d On: Aunu^t ?nn : JudgmentDeliveredOn: September, 2011 + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM IMo.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJSINGH , Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia,Advocate and Mr.N.5.Negi, Advocate. - • Vs. . • , \ •.UOI&angler . ,Respondents •: 4 ' • Through. Mir.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate &|Mr.SanjayKuniar Pathak, lyir.Sachin .. Nawani, Mr.SiddharthPanda and Ms.k: K^.omudiKiran, AdvocatesfonR-1 • ^ AND ty ' l^=2S2Z2^0, . LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM • IAADD1007/2010 & CM No.15181/2011 i 1009/2010,; LA.APP. 1010/2010, LA.APp' 1036/2010&CM No.12865/2011,LA.APP 5/2011' LA APP" ™. No.6756/2011, La.APP 38/20r± & « No.6740/2011,LA.APP.I41/2011, LA.APP 89/2011 LA APP 160/2011, LA.APP. 161/20n LA.APP. 246/2011, LA.APP. 247/2011,.LA.APP 298/2011, LA.APP. 3.47/2011,.LA.APp' LA.APP. 386/2011, LA.APP. 387/26ll' LAAPP" - Iw20n: ;u;app; (Relating to Notification u/Sec.. 4 dated 15.09.2000 & Award No. 06/20,02-2003,Viiiage^BhalswaJatiangir^ AND • LA.App.No.999/2010,&connectedmatters ; J?a|ei:of22 , + LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP'. 88/201.1 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP

16.4/2011, LA.APP. 200/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, LA.APP, 240/2011, LA.APP. 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011,LA.APP. 348/2011 .& CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011:&CM No.l5182/i011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011,' LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. 393/2011,. LA.APP. 398/2011, LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011 , LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001,Village-BhalswaJaha'ngirPuri) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whetherthe Reportersoflocal papers,may be allowed . to see the judgment? ••

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not? ' ,

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

1., I. proceed with an apologyto, the readerby referringto a notification issued later in point of time and-then to a notificationissued prior in point of time; but the reason is that the learned counsel for the land owners had addressed arguments with,respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining ,to the notificationwhich was.issuedearlierin pointoftime.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswajahangirPuri was acquired pursuant .• LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page2of22 to a notification dated

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, nannely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under .Secti.on. e of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following the due process, the Land, Acquisition Collector announced his award bearing No,6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, : whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ^13.82 . lakhs per ^cre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed at ?13.82 lakhs per acre. •

3.i Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference.Court, in , the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoh 1/5. • : -Union of India, assessed the fair market value ;of the acquired , ' land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or n4,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land' Acquisition Collector as well.as 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 01:04.2000, notified vide Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as the learned Land .Acquisition Collector, while assessing the compensation, did not grant appreciation for the period from

01.04.2000 tiir the date notification under, Section 4 of the : Land Acquisition Act was issued on

15.09.200G), but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the price ?13.8.2 lakhs per acre.' LA.App;No.999/2010&connectedmatters . , Page3 of22 p

¶3Another parcel-of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue., estate of village Bhalswa . Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a. notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated.

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitationof JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration underSection 6 of the Act. issued on 04.08.1998. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collector/announced an award bearing, No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,33,333 per bigha'whichis equivalentto ^il.20 lakhs per acre; • , . ' . • . .• ' • ; ,• '

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment.made ..by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land owners sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Act. .The Learned Reference Court, in .the lead matter being LAC ,No.lllA/2008 titled Chandrawati I/? Union ofIndia, the fair marketvalue of the acquired land .atm,46,670/- per acre. The difference.-in the ' destination reached is on the same reason as noted hereinabovepertainingto the notificationdated 15.9.2000i.e. the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoradopting the land rate notified by the Government with effect from, 1.4.1997 vide circulardated 25.7.1997'and ignoring that the notificationin question was issued on 30.7.1998and the learned Reference Court granting, enhancement @,11% per annum for the interregnum period. .

¶7The Union of India as well as the land owners have challenged the assessmentmade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . Page4of22 Court by: way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned above. • .

¶8On behalf of the land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance ,was placed on the following documentary evidence;- , (a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification dated 16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whdreby^ it-disclosed Its intention.to charge unearned Increase in respect of developed residential and commercial . properties owned, by L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the yearM,999,the ; rate of residential land In Azadpur, which. Is stated to . be close to village Bhalaswa.Jahangir Purl, was fixed at .^5830/- per square meter or ^2,35,92,400.'92-per . acre .and it was urged that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land qwners should be entitled to enhanced compensation In sum of ^1,•17,96,200/-per acre.'

(b) The rate, charged by MCD for allotment, of commercial plot In Sanjay GandhiTransport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution No.705 dated •23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot, developed plots to the transporters (g) ^425/- per • •. square, meter and Exhibit P:W-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD decided to allot the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport ^ , Nagar (5) ?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good evidence. • Relying on th.ese LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' 'Page'5of22 documents, learned counsel for .the land, ..owners argued that the rate stated, in the . resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fair market value of developed ., land comes to ?17,19,857/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value, would come to ^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per' •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9-.200d would < be ?24,76,592/-per acre. ' • '

(c) Learned counsel for the land owners also placed reliance on the auction record of plots, in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99.(ExhibitsPW-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 having plinth area of 69 square, metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging bet.ween^23.72 lakh to ^28.4 lakh, which according .to learned counsel,translates to a price of n4,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged that - suitable deduction, could 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, learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- .per bigha. It was LA.App.Nq.999/2010&connectedmatters '• , Page6of22 fly contended that this, sale deed should be relied upon, . after making a reasonable deduction .• towards , . development cost to determine the fair market value , . ^ - of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa ' Jahangir Purl. Another-sale'deed dated

24.03.20G0 (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 . 9 P'''ce of ?26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon.

(e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied , • ^pon an Agreement to Sell ('Exhibit'pW-6/1) which was •executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour of a ' society 'M/s.Butterfly',whereunder land was^ agreed to ; be sold on 05.08.1996 @^8 lakhs per acre. It was ^ - urged that the land was in the. revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangir Purl and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of .land in ' the said village as of the date,of the agreement to sell i.e. 5.8.1996. ' . , ^ . \

¶9Per, contra, Sh.Sanjay .Poddar learned ,senio.r counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, relied on a Sale Deed. ^ dated 05.06.1996(ExhibitR-2), whereunder1-03 bigha of land. . • • in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl was sold at. a price of .^1,40,000and urged that even if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given ,on said value, the price as on the date of the, notificationunderSection4 comes to ?1,94,782.perbigha, and. thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available; in the same village> it would be imprudent to.traverto the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed land for f ' • " LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters .Page7of22 fixing the m.ar:l<et value of undeveloped agricultural land having a'vast area. Learned counsel also argued,that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed.the fair , , • marketvalue of the land at a price much higherthan the one : • reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned'Reference Court. • • •• , '

¶10It may be noted that when judgmentwas reservedin the . above captioned matters on August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgment in ,,a batch of land acquisition ; appeals,lead matterbeing LA.App.No.266/2008'titled 1/9. in which similar argumentsas were advanced with' respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant , appeals .and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response to the argundents 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 Puri has come out in the depositionof Shri Trilo.kChand {HafqaPatwarJ) . who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008titled Raj Singh' I/? Union ofIndia in Which he has explained, the topology of the area while proving the Ales Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa jahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated,in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villagesSamaipur Badli and Haiderpurare situated in the West and villages.Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of. village Jahangir Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters •* ' .-Page8of22 &

¶12I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of ; Delhi, published by the • Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that,village Bhalswa jahangir Puri is situated on.the eastern side of G.f.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.I. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the western • side of National Highway No.1.

13., it 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 village,was for re-settlement of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the character of urbanization in the. area was of a kind where potential price increased c|ue to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinoh Vs. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, it was noted that there existed a resettlementcolony calledJahangirPuri in the area Which had sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the.'year 1975-

¶76It has to be rem.emberedthat the two subject acquisitions, were also for re-settlement of.sium and J.J.Clusters.- •

¶14The decision in LA.App.No;266/2008 iai Sinah l/s. UOi & Mn which was reserved ,on 12.8:2011 and had yet to. be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when ihstant appeals were-reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and r would -highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same revenue dis.trict i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur G.arhi, Sanoth, AlVur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holahibi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and :Bawana, i had noted that. the topology of the' area LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . ; Page9of22 .constituted, a 'V at tine pojnt of intersection wliere GT-Karnei Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-IO-bifurcated at a common poipt, proceeding in different directibris,, at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be tnigtilighted,tlnat village Blnaiswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained fiereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1., •15. In 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 notifications issued'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) and the sale deed dated .24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-1'5/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned' counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para

(d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment.dated

23.8.2011, 1 have^discarded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:- \ •

¶21The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds,. Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the . sale.deed Ex.PW-1/2 which 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. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence ,to deterrinine fair market value , of agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning: that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was ^ purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami. Satsang' and Suraj Bhan ;PV\/-6 who had tendered the sale 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 . • purppse. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise ' LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . Page10 of22 ,, , . been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization'"Christian Organization" and as per the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organization had to • ^ pay the price for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. i there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee., . •

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) see .717 Land Acoursitiori 'Officer Eluru & Ors-. Vs. , , Isti Rohini&Ann fRefpr ppira anH'^nno (T/j) grc 369 Mohd. Raufudd'in Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para, p) sale transactions.evidenced in a sale deed which are tend'ered in evidence by virtue. ,of Section 51A of the L.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 the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyerto pay a higherprice. The : true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpidce of land:-An informed,buyer would be one who has \ ' studied the market and has apprised himself orall available land in the area; has understood the . topology of the ai"ea and the prevailingprices.: If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he > • pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I do not highlightthat the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated

20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated

27.1.2003 where-underagriculturalland.in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. ?17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28 89. lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-l/B., The 2 sale deeds ,, , . LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' ' Page11 of.22 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 the reasoningof the. learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would' be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason Ifind that undervarious awards nearlybetween.7,000to 8,000 bighaof land have been acquired a,nd when the-,acquisitionis of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having . intrinsicevidenceofthe transactionbeing the result of a fancy of the buyer. 1would be failing .not to note an unreported; decision cited by learned being the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.IMo.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh (since deceased) thru ! ^ nr/ highlightedthatthe sale deed therein by which L&T I ^ 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural _lanc( for expansion of its factory which had been ignored, by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the, price reflected therein could not be reated as a good evidence of value of land in the area,, was rejected by the Court and the price in question,with suitabledeductionon accountof the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instantcases the 2 sale • ^ question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be_ treated as the basis to determine fair marketvalue. Theargumentignoresthe reasoning ITo u of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the ' value in the sale deed,on its own logic as indicative of the, market value,'but found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3^", the price arrived at would be the,same as would be price arrivedat with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by,the Union of India i.e. the sale,deeds LA;App.No.999/2010&'coimectedmatters Page12 of22 • •' produced by the Government were giving a price of ^1,37,000/- per bigha and. the sale deed under • which. L&T had purchased tine land gave the ,price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and. the average would, conne. • to ^2,31,800/- which ,was near about the price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3would be'deducted from the sum of ^3)26,600/-.. It may further .be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale . was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995 and

16.11.1995 and the Cpurt • determined fair market value as of the said dates at " , ; the 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 hot that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for.if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore . already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land, price, as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is. intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds 'reflecting fair market value."

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

¶17As regards the agreementto 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/-. ;• .18. Now, if the price, as per th;? own showing of the land owners was ^15,70,000/- per acre as^ on 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • .' Page13 of22 . ^ ,• : difficult to compreliend.theabnormally hi^h value as per Ex.PW-;6/lwhich is dated 8.4.1996in.whichthe stated price Is : / ; ^18 lakhs per acre.Jt is indeed a puzzlethat in 1996 the price' : yvas ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the price fell to ^15.7 lakhs per acre. ,1 need to highlightthat in paragraph ' . 39 of its decision, the learnedi Reference Cpurt, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opined that the said.price was for . special considerations and not the price settled between an •informed willing buyer ^nd an informed willing seller and ., without being influenced by special needs-^ertai^^^^^ % , '^particularland, and had thus discardedthe s3id sale deed as ' _ 'not reliable evidence wherefrom;fair market value-ofa large , ' , ,; track of land had to be fixed. ; •

¶19' have discQSsed this issue, in' niy decision dated,

23.8:2-0al in LAApp:.No.266/2008lai Sfnoh vk UO! & Ann lu • ;, . ' . where an-abnormally high price for a parcef;of lland is.with. evidence of .neither the buyer nor the seller :being: well- ' ' ^ , informed antl there being a special feature qua the,land and:; have held the same not to be good evidenceto deterrnlnefair •^ niarket.value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price' paid' by a buyer smitten vyith fancy, which observ.citionshave r- . ..alreadybeen extracted by me hereinaboyei.e. paras 22 arid' / 23 of the ,said decision. I reiterates^the same. .• .

¶20As regards auction rates of developed plot of land • situated in the Sanjay Gandhi TransportNagar, i do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned: ReferenceCourt contained in paragraphs 29 and 3Q which are premisedoh the decisionof the SupremeCourt reportedas La! LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . Page14 of22 >) , chand Vs. Union of Indm 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertainingto tine evidence relating to'auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.

¶21In my decision dated.23.8>2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 Vs. UO! & Ors., I had extensively discussed the law declared by 'the Supreme.Court in La! Chand^ case with referenceto price at which developed plots were allotted by differentagencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevantobservations and findings in-para 29 to 31 of the decision in laiSinah's^case are extracted hereunder:- ,

¶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. Whetherit was 20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which' were noted by the Supreme Court in La/ Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable tp determine the value of land in the subject cases.

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

¶31I hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping In view the observation and the findings of the SupremeCourt in La! Chandz case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentialityrelating 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. LA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmatters .. •Page15 of22-'

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

¶23I reiterate the reasoning to hold that pride at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Tra,nsportNagar 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! Chands case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with' reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired foH Rohini ResidentialScheme, I negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am,. concerned with large tracks of jands ad-measuring^ 758.01' bigha and 929.05 bigha. , 25. From the topology of the.area and as perthe testimony of TrilokChand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC ' NO.112A/2008it emerges that village^Burari is on .the east of village Bhalswa jahangir Puri and indeed the, plan for Delhi.' would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as. we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the. Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the. famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka T|la. The two are adjoiningvillages separated by .'OuterRing,Road'and LA.App.No.999/20r0&connectedmatters ' , Page16 of22 . I thus the fair market value,of land on a particulardate in the two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessingthe fair marketvalue of the land situated m village Burari, which was acquiredpursuant"to notifications dated 24.G7.1998 and 18.07.2003issued urider.Section4 of the Land Acquisition^Act)I had cqnsidered thf',n^^t4^a| record i.e. the' evidence in my ."decision prc^noyncld'on .7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being LA. Appeal NO.971/20Q8titled Raiba!&Qr<;. \/<, iininn ofincim Qr^ In the said decision,Ihad assessedthe fair marketvalue of agriculturalland at ?11,60,5:8:0.82per acre for CategoryA land, no,44,522.73 per acr| for Category ..B land and ?9.:28,464.65per acre for Category Cland pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquired.pursuanto notification dated 18.07.2003 had been ^assessed by me at ?19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and.ei7,28,512/-p'^r acre for Category Bland.^ \n,.M_Sin^'s {supra), I had S.No. -t Village Name Date of Notification under Section 4 Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 n4.75 fdr Category 'A' ^4.3728 , for Catedorv 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8.2000 ^4.75 3; A ' Bawana

7.8.2000 ^14.75 for Category'A' ^14.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.9.2000 .^14.835 , for Category'A' fl4.46413 for Category 'B' LA.App.No,.9.99/20ip&connectedmatters ft

¶5N^rela

2.5.2001 T16.165 . for Category 'A' ?15.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan '22.8.2001 ^6.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B' 7,. Alipur

22.8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 ?

16.745 for Category 'A' ^16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Raja.pur Kalan

22.8.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 , ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi.

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ?18.655 ,14. Alipur'

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth,

27.1.2003 ^19.43;5 for Category 'A' . ?18.94912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category '.C

¶16• . j Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 ?19.435 for Category 'A' ?18,94912 for Category 'B' ^18.47539 for Category 'C

¶27In lai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Governmentfrom time to time and found the same not to be the ipse dixit the LA.App.No.999/2010 &'cojinectedmatters . , Government officers anci^ had found not only rationale but a , Reflection of urbanizatiort^ inipacting. .such increase. With' ;,/referenceto the decisions Of ^bur Division Benches of-this , Court reported IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah Vs. lini % • Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 2Q Ranh ChandRr l/<7. llhl Hi (VnnziV DLT 95 Hukum Sinph Vs. UO! and an unreponted decision in LA.App..No.866/2005 Maherider Sinah Vs. UQ! Ors: dpridpri : ; on 11.5.;2006wherein based on sale deeds andvotherevidence ^ land price'wasdeterniinedon variousdates beitweentheyears 1993 to 1996 and in relationto the minimum pricefixed by the ; GpvernnientI had highlighted ih paras 50 to 53 ,otthe said . ', . decision as under;- V

¶50The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as, also the Various notifications issued from time to time, by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts -relevant to determine the •growth/rise in the prices of agriculturalland in Delhi over the years cohimencing , from the yea.^ 1990. As of 27.4.1990minimumprice was .^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as . of1.4.1997 i.e. the increaseis ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115;Q54%increase in 7-yearsand ; the averageprice increasewould be 16.436%.' The price ; rise over the next I yedr is.by,ll,2% and thereafter byv, 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5%for the next year i.e . as ;of 1.4.2001. ,It. shows that due to urbanization,• , between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly • : sharply and good corroborative evidence, for this would ^: be the decision of the Division Bench of this Gourt in GajraJs case (supra), which. I have' discussed in para 49 above. ' - • • . '

¶51r need to. elaborate a little more with/respect to the decision in GajTafs case. Discussing the evidence . pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land In; village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in par^s-9to 17 ,• •LA.App.Nd.999/2,010 & connected matters Page 19 of 22.

^ • $-23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 961/2010 % SATYAVRAT Appellant Through: Mr.Deepak Khosia and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA &ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MRJUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG