Om Prakash & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008,titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & A nr. ^IL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb # m THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT P^^EW DELHI Reserved on: November IS, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (pRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBJR SHARJVIA i Appellant . Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.SmiLa Ma.an, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms .Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.RohTas.i AdA ocate. Mr.Raghnvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roiil and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RcijeshYadav. Mr.].;)eepakKhosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.]3hananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.fi.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhnr. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocaie. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Ravilela,(Advocates ibr respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus L'|.NK)N01' INDIA& ANR. - Respondents « 1hrough: Mr.SanjayPoddav,Sen/orAd\'ocatewilb Mr.Saajii) Pathak, Mr.iVioh.itrao.Vadha\'and Ms.Navlin Swain. Ms.K.KaumiidiKiran.Advocatesfor LAC/UOI Mr.AJayVerma, Ms.Becnashaw Soni. Mr.Mukcsh Kumar,Mr^S,K.Sethi,Mr.Pav/iinMathirr,Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advo.caie for DDA !.A.APP.412/2008&. CM.No,.4096/200S (Cross-Objections).f./\.APP.;-!52/200(S; l.A.APP.453/2008;LA.APP,688/2008& CA4.No.5990/20K)'(Cross-Objeclions)! i.A.API'.697/2008& CM.No.433,/2009(C!ross-Objectio.ns);LA.APP.70i/20C8& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-01:^iectioas); APP.768''200S; !..\./\PP.770/2008; IA.App. Nil. I19.'>/7;00.S& copnecledAppnnlsofVillitgi;Bhurllial i•VAdo. No. /94/?0;i.0ti, coiinoc'.edAppc.-jisofVillage:Bi.iwaijn I•^.App. iVo. I:i:i./?0,10&connpcindAppealsofViila^c:l-ochanpur LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2G09(Cross-Objections);^A-AlP^774/2(^08& CM No 611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/-0 , i'a.APP.777/2008;LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); iVaPP783/2008-LA.APP.784/2008;LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CrI efsS '(C>-oss-Objectio"s,;LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.93,/2009 (Cross^Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.8062008; LA-A" CM No 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/200. (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; 1AAPP 829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; Ia'w 844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008:LA.APP.873/2008& CM.No.779/201 fCross-Obiections)-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; TaAPP 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.l7340/2008 (Ci-oss-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; ].,A.APP.l047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008&CMNo.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420;2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008; LA.APP.1051/2008& CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-Objections);Ly\..APP.l

052./2008; LA.APP,1053/2008& CM.No.416/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008& CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008& CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections);

1...A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081,/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); I.,A.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1086,^2008 & CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1093./2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objectibns);.LA.APP.l111/2008; LA.APP.l112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP,1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 ((.-.ross-Objections);LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; [..A.APP.l 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections). LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP.l 135/2008 & CM,No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); LA,A.PP.1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008; L^EJ^]43i2aCl&, LA.APP.1 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections);(lAAPP.l 159/200^LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.1167/2008 &~~CM.No.802/2^9(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.l 170/2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA.APP.l 173/2008; LA.APP, 1175/2008; LA,APP,1178/2008; LA,APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.l 181/2008; LA.APP. 1182/2008; LA.APP.l 1S3/2008& CM.No,6933./2009 (Cross-Objections); l.A.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.1185/2008; 1..A.APP.1186/2008&,CM.No.7013/2009 iA.App. No. .'il95/?.008& connnctGdAppeal.sofVillaBfiBharlhal I.A App. No. ZD'i/ZO.lO& corinectudAppealsof VillageBijvvasan , ' . , l.A,App. No. ;i.11./2010& connRr-lGc)Appeai.sofVillagePochaiiDur' , ' • ' PagR?.or2!3 # / (Cross-Objcclions);LA.APP:!190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.l192/2008 LA.APP.n93/2008;LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.l195/2008;LA.APP.l197/2008 LA.APP.l198/2008&' 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-Objectio,ns);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM No 3841/2009 (Cross-Objectjons); 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.128|l/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.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/2009 LA APP 79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/201.1 (Cross-Objections) 1AAPP 108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009;LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.210/2009& CM.No.970/2011 (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APP.2]1/2009; LA.APP.22Q/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224,/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.yVPP.230/2009& (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24l/2009; LA.APP.245,/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; I..A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.49Q/2009; LA.APP.495/2()09; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.13,/20jl; I,A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009: LA.APP.513/2009; LA APP,45/2010; .A.APP. 1138/2008; !7\.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP,.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA. APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 CM.No.7206/2009 LA,APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.APP.481/20.09 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.l 176/2008 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002-Village Bharthal,-Delhi) (GRID-B) ^ i Reserved on: December 08, 20.11 : Pronounced on: January 06. 20J2 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). • , , ' l)l.iyi";,NO.LRKL^MAR •..... Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.'Fomar,Mr.VirendraSingh 1A.App. i\io l]9.'j/2008& connectGdAppealsofVillage BharUlal IA.App. No. 294/2010& connectcdAppealsofVillageBijwasah 1A.App No. 1.1.1./Z010& connected Appealsof VillagePochanpur Pago 3 of 29 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.Ev.Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR ; 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 ' M^r.B.K. Roiitray, Advocates in appeals •; filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, '7] • & 72 in appeal filed by UOI ' Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shanna and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates • forDDA. LA.AFP. Ll:/2010 LA.AFP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 r.A.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. ]00/2010 LA.APP. 221/20]0 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 24:6/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 l.A.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. l.A.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 • l.A.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 43:8/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP.77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.A:PP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. 722,/20]0 l.A,.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010, .LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP.

828./2010 .LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & oss-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&'B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the ;Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) ^ : AND i •• • l.A.App, No. .119.')/2008& connectod Appeals of Village; BharthnI LA.App. No, 294//.010 & connc;c.tadAppealsof VillageBijwasan !.A.App.No. 113/2010. & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur % # (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 l.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGE:P0CHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumai",Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus , UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.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 forDDA. . I] 1/2010 . 160/2010 . 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/201]' 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. 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. LA,APP, LA.APP. LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011

485./2011 525/201] 554/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.y\PP. L/\.APP. LA..APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 '. 209/2010 . 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 57':7/20l0 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 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 53572011 l-A,.App,No, U,95/?.008&conncclpdAppealsofVillageBharihal LA"'\pp.No, 2.91/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan : l-A.App No :.1.1/2010&connecledAppealsofVillagePochanpur: (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL C^AUR ORDER %

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcreiorc with the consent of:learnedcounsel for the parties present at the hearing ot these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for .planneddevelopmentof Phase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricuhural land in one compact bloclc comprisingof thirteenRevenue Kstates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the afoj-esaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., y\ward No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation ^13.82 lacs per acre for JBlock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue ofthcii'acquired LA.App. IMo. 1195/2008&connectedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal.' lA.App. No. ?.9'i/?.010&connoctedAppealjof VillageBijwasan ! lA.App. Mo. 111/20.10& connfictedAppealsofVillaRG Pochanpur' 9^ agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourtvide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants',acquired land in Block 'A' and @?13.36 lacs per acre tor their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelating to Village Pochanpurhave been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancementof compensationsought by the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees Fiftylacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of RiupeesThirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board w. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors,, (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Ann,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors ra. State ofHaryana and Ann,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

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

(D) through LRs w. The Special Land Acquisition Officer^ Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Naml (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Ann, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho 'Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 20H)(9) SCALlt 41; Chakas State of Punjab S: Ors., 2011 (9) SCALJ", 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors to. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha sS Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 S^^^C 71 4; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors ra. ExecutiveEngineer^ !A.App. No. .U5,';/?008& cunn(?ctndAppealsofVillageSharthai :.''.ApD.?-!(). & conneclfidAppealsofVillags Bijwasati A.Aop. No 131/2010&connectnaAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • • Page 7of 29 Gujarat and Am\, AIR 20,01 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15\ RisaiSingh & Ors. Fs, Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patei and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyantmaland Anr w. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) 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. Fs. Union of India & Anr, 176(20]1) DLI 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh ra. ^ Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om ^ Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar ra. Union of India, decided on

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

(170)DLT371.

¶6On the strengthofthe aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of tinne and the same cannotbe limitedto the near lliturealone.

¶7Kwas pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsihat Delhi-Rcwari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on-theeasternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi l.A.Aop. No. 13.3.V2003& connectedAppealsofVillage Bhariha! iA.App. No. 2!11/Z010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. l.,l:l/20].0&connectedAppealsofVillaRnPochanpur Page 8 of 7,9 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 Pait-II again, divides the agricultural land into two portious; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalldia. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned'counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndian Oil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Vill.ageBharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984;for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and ^ the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siraswere also acquired for the development of Phase-il, Dwarka Sub-City, Attentionwas drawnto the aks\sizraslm?i^to highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous. i

¶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 agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and! infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ccasedto be rural in view of the Notificationof 24^" October, 1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been V\'rongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.App. No. il95/;'.008& conneclEdAppealsofVillage Bharlhal! , LA App.,No. 291/7.010 & connficted Appeals of VlllaRe Bijwasan LA.App. !\lo. .Ul/M'i.O & conncdc'd AppRal.sof Village!Pochanpur • - 5^ Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been;consideredby the Apex eourt in its later decisionin Udho Bass ra. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of 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 mean thatthere is no buildingjpotentiality. JO. Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely bccause of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, bccause there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex CourtmAnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representmgthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 . lacs per acre and since the sale, exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circleratesfor determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mi.R.Cjodara,learned counsel fpr the appellantson the basis of the I.& DO rates lixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepmg in view the location,situationand , potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is IAApp. no. U95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBhar.hal i ' LA.App^ No. ?J4/?.010&conncctedAppealsof VillageBijwssan ' A.App i\io. connnctedAppealsofVillage-Pochanpur i ' Page 10of29 I sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and I Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka iPhasc-I or on the basis of the Pre-I Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above. I

¶12In the written synopsis, a,ppellant-Impulse India Private Limited of.LA. App. No. 295/2009 has; assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- ; a) "Ignores the acknowledgement-on the part of the respondent about the^ AM'ard No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.J0.2002 being flaM^ed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated ^

7.7.2007) b) Does not account for the fad that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area for more thay;i 15years 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 down by variousdecisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in • SangunthalaversusTdhsildar 2010(3)see 661. d) Ignores the evidence 'and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining the valueofthe land wideracquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law estahlished by the HorilbleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Falurci Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer,.Ciyil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Cow-t has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigher rcite shouldnot be disregardedin I.A.App. No. l,19:i/2008&connoaedAppealsof Village Uharthal ; LA.App, ;Mo.?!M/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageDijwasan \ l-A.App.No. .1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur I PapeU-f29 r case the average sale'.price is lower. Further in Anjana. Mohi Dessai v^'. State, of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions .should be considered while adjudicating upon conkpensationupon 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 Idfid. is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and 113,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State oj Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. • g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notijication of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Governmentfor land use change show that in future land, can be subjected to residentiai commercial and other permissibleuses. It is'also^pertinentto mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"^ amendment' of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the '.Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, M>as • • deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was elected from, there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. \ h) Refused to apply the] law laid down in AIR. Suprem.e Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of India and refused to consider thefact that the development in the area has a direct'effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpay for the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also l.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connGcled Appeals of Village Bhartliai l.A.App.No. 291/7,010&connecledAppealsof VillagG Biiwasan | LA App. No. 111/2010& connocledAppealsofVillagePochanpur! Page 12of 29 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 accountthe possibilityof change of the use of the land although the land, was acquiredfor development purpose,s of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated, that the land use of VillageDhool Siras a.nd Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. . I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v, Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held, that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe land hasgot 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 being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portionoj the land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof Hi beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the iactual details haVe been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof I.A App. Mo. .Iig5/;W08&conriGcledAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A.Aipp. iMo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof yillageBijwasan ' CA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' " ' urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered, in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapi! Mehra (Major General) & Ors, Vs, Union of India & \ Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

15., Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learnedSeniorCounselurgedthat thoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894,'.3. certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence lor determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the Jland in question and element of special lancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the i property,proximityto the vill&ge ere. 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 La! vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Iial Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(z009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP;. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar w. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price m a shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bhart.hal' ;A.App. No. 7.91/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan • lA.App. No. 111/Z010&connectedAppealsofVlllagePochanpur ' Papol4ofZ9 hi and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeofthe tisual prevalenttrend in the marketWouldpay such ahigherpay 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-objectqr that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DetcrminedRates cannot be;countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai C/iawrf|(supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Court in Sushi!Kumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectoisthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the ^ minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on ]•"' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per cinnum, maiket value ol the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted that there is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RelerenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line M'hile granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. ' 1/. Alter considering the rjval submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon 1coord and the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling lv\ App. No. 1195/;J008&connectedAppealsof VillaBeSharthal• iA/\pp, No, 294/2010&connactBdAppealsof Villagoliijwasan ' 1A.App. No. Tll/2010a connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpu." ; Page 15 of 2.9 oh « • seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of pbtential value 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 Harycma & Ors" 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "fij the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;

(ii) ' the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) possibility of obtaining water and electric supplyfar occupants of buildings to beput up on that land;

(iv) absence ofstatutory impedimentsor the likefor using the acquired landfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired,land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become !||||| availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and.

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

¶181he potentialityofland for the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large numberof factors. I-or the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. No. 1.195/7.008& conneclpdAppealsofVillageBharlhal , W.App.,No.M4/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ! LA.App. No. 11.1/2010&conneclGdAppealsof VillagePochanpur i Papp of 29 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).Whilereiteratingthe relevantfactors for determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-;exemplarsof small piecesof land relied upon by the appellantscould not be a groundto discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepieceslOfland were notavailable.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands'reiterated by the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants is 'that where there is no basic difference ^ either in location, situation or; potentialitvof the villages, which are ^ similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands 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 Apek Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), w'hile 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 im.proper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in Anjani Mohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as uinder:- IA.App. i\o. 3IS5/200S & conriccled Appealsof Village Bharthal I 1A.App, No. JM/JX'IO& connectHdAppealsofVillageBijwasan ' IA.App. No. 11.1/;^010& connpciodAppealsofVillagePochanpur < Page 17of29 I : ^ V- "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars,'whichis a bonafide transaction, M>iU be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilarlands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the marketprice. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly 'fUfferent, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are with referenceto dissimilarlands or that the lower value sale\ is on accoimt of under-vahiation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. " I

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

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as f I reiterated by the Apex Court in; Oil ami Naturd! Gas Corporation Ltd

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:-: t "Prim.arily, the increase]in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the, land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices ' would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurts or jumps. 1A.A,op. No. 3195/2008 & connnctGdAppealsof ViilagG Bharllial ; ' i.A.App No. 294/2010& connpctadAppealsof Village Bijwasan ; i.A.App, No. l]l/2'0ia Si connectedAppealsofVillage!Porhar,pur ' Pagel8of29 On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market pHce is at a much higher rate, as comparedto ruralarea's. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapid developmentiand high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreper year, duringthe nineties. On the otherextreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a nominalrate of 1%> or 2% per a.nnum. There is\ thus a significant difference in Increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in[marketvalue of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to l5%o per annwn, the correspondingincreasesin rural areas wouldat best be ^ ^ only aroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%per annum.. ^ This rule of thwnb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. ! Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value byproviding appropriate escalation over the proved.marketvalue of\nearby lands in previousyears (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcompardjjle lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the_ relied-on-sale transactions/acqiiisitiohs precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, 'even if it relates to a, neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a. few years, 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 l.A.App. No. 1.1,95/2008a connc!ctHdAppaalsof Village;Bharthai l.A.Ai^o,No, 294/2010& connnctedAppealsofVillageSijwasan; LA.Apo. No. 1,1,1/2010& connRctedAppeal.';ofVillageFochanpyr Page 19of29 r acquisition in 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurts in prices affectingthe verystandard of increase. "

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictum ofthe Apex Courtin Haiyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.WHat was said bythe Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- : 'When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different sitiiationaladvantages)d,re acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming 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 ofcoinpensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acqun-ed !and of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand tjie solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., Radha SwamiSatsangBeas had puichased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/l0) v^'hich arc basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds l-A.App. No. .1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ! LA.App. Mo. 294/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' lA.App. No. 1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanour ' ' ; vy M,0 (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from t52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (ExiPW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)did not command the same marketprice.Itwas! dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to I each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds ;(Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchased/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satscmg, Becis who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siiigh w. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be ti'eated as representative price for thd acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to th;eir acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were tieingused for agriculturalpurposetill their. acquisition.Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge-ofprevailing i.A.App. No, 1195/2008& connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal :,A.App,IMo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasari I.A.App. No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page u of 29 marketprice ofthe land in questionwould pay such ahigh price unless and until such purchaseis meantfor specialconsiderationand so, in the consideredopinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (]':x.PW-l/4 to ltx.PW-1/10):have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. ; I

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha(bx.PW-1/11) reliedupon by the appellantsis;concerned,disclosingexorbitantpiice ol ^"1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11)was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11)vendorhad soldnot onlythe landbutthe structurethereon 4^ includingtube well, boring,fitting, fixture,lane, by-lanc,etc.,therefore, r ^ it had fctchcd such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Prc-Dctcrmined Rates for the ^alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true, market value of the acquired lands in question. ;

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Redcfyand Ors. F. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors.\ 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under "12. IJcnvever, in either \ofthe said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvalue of the acquired land with buildingpotentialitywitPj. referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood I I IA App, No. .l,19.'j/2008& conner.ted Appealsof VillageBharthal ' l.A.App. No, Z94/;'.010& connocteciAppealsof Village!Bijwasan ' IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur; P;ige 22 of29 or whether it be the determination ofthe market value ofthe acquired land with buildingpotentiality with reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots ;in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out what will be the price fetched or to befetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of theparties, with reference to theprice which theplots couldhaw-fetched ifsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, \yhere 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 market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it~ was put and increase its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained, on the basis of evidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase, to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found [out according to its actual user since resort to the metUod of giving increased valuefor such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired land, indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for building plots even ifformed in the acquired land. " i

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and I tran-sferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DetcrminedRates in;determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictumx of Lai Chand (Supra), a coordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being noi relevantlor assessingthe marketvalue of iA.App. No..n.'«/?,008& conncclpdAppaalsofVillagoEharthal lA.App. No. 291/2010& conncctndAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App.'No. ll,l/20].0&connficledAppealsofVillaBGPochanpur ; ^3 of 29 UP the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCouit has rightlynot adoptedthe Dr)Aratssfor allotmentofdevelopedlandor the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalue of the acquiredagricu

¶32Now what is required tp be method would be relevant criteria land in questionwhiletakingjnto tural lands in question. seen is whether progressive increase for assessingthe marketvalue of tl ie onsiderationthe earlier acquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBhaijthal md othervillagesfor developmentoi Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought ;o be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddai, learnedsenior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe ^ escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken fiom the ^ year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for developmeifit of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor development|ofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedpii^e and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. ;

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincrease method;in assessmentof the market value oi the acquiredland'only when the,gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates^ to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandard,if the gap is of only of a few years,may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhasc-I and Dwarka Phase-II is of sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the | market value by providing appropriate

1.A App. No. 119^1/2008& connected Appeals of Village Bharl;hal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & conncctud Appealsof VillageBljwas'an !.'\.App.No. 111/2010 Si connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur V escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, : learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% iper annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. Alter having perused the decision in Smhil Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired; land over and above the market value determinedby the Reference;Court has been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra)iescalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe:reducedto 10%) per annum, hi this view oi 4!^ the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%o per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1^' April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further Increased or not. :

¶36Adoption of Governnient'sminimum rates of agriculturalland I pertaining to the Notificaticjn 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 changedbiit that by itselfis not sufficientto IA.App. l\;o. ]l9r,/2dos&connGctedAppealsof VillagG Bharthni I.A App. No. &, conncctndAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App. No. ]1.1/2010&conneclndAppealsof VillageI'ochanfjur Py ^^5 of 2'3 presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands';. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any deveiloprnentin and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, heavily relied upon by the appellants disclosethat the sale of the said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder;Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired Ipds were; put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand, on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have-laidtheir:handson other sale instancesin the area ^ in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto a religiousinstihitionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-f/Il)without leading any evidence to cstabltslithat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSainalldia(bx.PW-l/l1) are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the atquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (I«. PW-1/|I)" cannofbe treated to be sufficient giound to giant higher cornpensitionwhile relying upon the aforesaid W sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of tlie Apex Court in Haryana State\IndustrialDevelopmentCorpomthn (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate qfcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor tlie agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factorsIin the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the &ct that there is agap bet«,een w-hat I l-A.App No. l.Tl/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur :• Pase 26 of 2.9 would be expectedto be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown,Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquu'ed landsin JaiSingh(Supra)as well as in SushilKumar(Supra)andIimd no reasonto take adifferentview than the one w^hichhad beentaken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)and SushilKumar(Supra).

¶38This Court is ofthe consideredview that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. iMndingof the ReferenceCour^inmatterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquired lands is similarto 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 IGI Airport; Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and; of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 1:00 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part 1 and Part 11, dividing the 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 aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands las assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the I.A App. No. 113V2008 & connKclcdAppealsof Village SharUiai l.A.App. No. 294/2010&cormectedAppealsofVillageBijvi/asan'< 1A.App. No,'1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof Villa|?GPoclianpyr ml Vj' ; settled legal position aptly highlightedby the Apext Court in Mina NaiisherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, inthesewords:- "W'hen once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibiUiyof the acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquired land had a buildingpotentiality and'proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase inprice attributable to such building potentiality. " I

¶39Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide ei definite value qua potential, aijid in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is ^ broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem ^ with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum priccs for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquired lands as there are: no spccial features to treat the acquired lands dilferentlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurarc treated at par with theij-counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra),1am inclinedtjD grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourt in these matters on account of the aloresaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the RcfcrcnceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof lA.App No. 1.1.9^2008&cormficlcdAppealsof VillageBharthal ! ' lAApp. No, ?.91/;'010& conneclodAppealsof VillageBijwasan I • • lAApp No. .1.1.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ! I the appellants of Village Poqhanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the maijketvalue of the acqmredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determmed@f16,50,000/-per^.bi-gh^for the Category V\' land and @?14,'69,600/-per Ui^ka for the Category 'B' lands in question. I

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, staiuiorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the iudgraent reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLl 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall r be paid, fhese appellants wouldjbe entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the albresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,if any, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General ol this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. .launary 06, 2012 pkb I.A App. Mo. 1195/2008& connnclodAppealsofVillagfiBharthal I.A.;*pp.^No. 294/2010& conncctedAppealsofVillageBijwusan lA.App. No. 1.11/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (SUNIL GAUR) -'S Pago 29 of 29 f HIGH COURT OF + LA.APP. 1195/2008 versus DELHI AT NEW DELHI Appellant Mr.AmitMaan,MrJaiPralcash, Ms.SmitaMaaii.Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jitm Tewathia, Adyocates Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr NS.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr SK.Rout:Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentinappealsfiledby UOI) Mr.SudhanshUTomar, Advocatefor Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D.SlWma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates UNION OF INDIA&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.BaniceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharaiaand Mr.Somer K:Seth, Advocates for DDA. I COl^AM: ^ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.011.2012 ' I C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (Forcorrectiom). This is an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6''^ January,2012. ^ Counsel appearing for the appellantshave accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 i Page 1 V V of the application.Advancepopy of this applicationhas alreadybeen given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6^" January, 2012 is that in•paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', wliereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthat t,he referenceto 'per bigha' inparagraph no; 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/i2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary I corrections be carried out fortllwlth. i I Jn viewotthe aforesaid,!this applicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb c.. "• NIL GAI JUDGE AApp.No.1195/2008 Page 2 ^X>

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 -I- LA. APP. 1159/2008 OM PRAKASH & ORS. 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 forDDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR