Prem Lata & Anr v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vi'. Union of India & A nr. --^Se^LGAURf JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. S HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW : ' Reserved on: November IS, 2011 : ' " Pronounced on: January 06, 20i2 ; (Igrid-a) ^L.A.APP.1195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) ' RANBJR SHARMA ; Appellant rhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr./\mil Maan,Mr.Jai Prakcish,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verraa, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohras: Ad\'ocate. , Mr.RaghM.yinderGodar^,Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate K4r.S.K.Rouland Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates-.: Mr.Pankai Vivek, Advocate , Mr;.RkjeSh."Y^dav,Mr^DeepakKhosl'a,Mr.SamitKhosia .and,Mi:.rihan.arijayMchiaAvat,Advocates •Mr.H.S.Rauiela, Acivocafe •. ' • Mr.I.S.Dalliya,A^vxH:;a^,e • Mr.SandeepThaRiiur. Advocate •Mr.AtiiiTripathi,'Advocate.. Mr.N;S;.Negi':and'Mr.il.S.Raiife.la, (Advocatesfor . respondeni'.inappi;alsfiled by UOI) ' . . versus . ' . , iJb'lGKK)]\lNUlA•& ANR. : • Respondents• Ihrough; .Mr.SanjayPoddar,$en!.orA.d^'ocatewith Mr.Saaiay Patbak, Mr:Moh,itrao.'.jadliav and'Ms.Navlin Swain. Ms.KX.aujtii!di;.Kiran:Advocatesfor T.AC/U()I Mr.A.jay:yerma;Ms.BecnashawSoni. Mr.Mukesh Kumar,•Mr;S;K.Sefh],.M'.PawanMathur,-Mr.Kunal S,harnia,A4vocaieJcr D[)/\ - !.A.APP,412/2,008& 'GM;No,4096/20a« fG;'d5S-Obj,eGtious!.fAAPP 4'*'>/'^008-LA,APP.453/2008;.LA.APi:\688/2008.&' a4;No.5990/20:T0'(Cross-Obi.edions); &-• €M..No,43y2009(Cross-Objections};'LA.APP.701/2008& •.(.Cross-dBjections):• L APP/768/200R; l.A.APP.770/2008:, LA.App. Wo. ll<J.V200a•& CDPnGctedAppnHlsbfVilliigf!Bharlhai ;A'\op. No. >94/?0ae& t:Qniit!Ci.edApptiilsciryjiiagcBfi.vasdii_ •\.App, iVo. in/?010 &• cqnnociKciAppciali^ofyiilasoI'ochanpiir ' i.A,APj'.697/2008 CMNb.510/2009 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2OO8; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP,798/2008 & CM.N0.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cros,s-Obiactions); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.83()/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); L/V.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.r032/2{)08 & CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1046/2008 LA.APP. 1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.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);LA.APP. 1052/2008 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.AFP.1057/2008& CM.No,752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP. 105^/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./200S & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1084/2008&' CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1086./2008 & CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM..N0.619/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP,1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l109/2008; L.A,.APP.1.110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.l111/2008;LA.APP.l112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.111.5/2008; [A.APP.1116/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008; [A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections), LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP.l 13:5/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); l.A.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 iCross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP. 1V56/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; IJuAPP.l 158/2008 & .CM.No.7774,/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1159/2008;(lA.APP.1161720^LA.APP.1166/2008; LA.APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/20oH^3ro5S^OB]ecHon^LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA.APP. 1173/2008; LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008; LA.APP.l 182/2008; LA.APP.l 183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); l.A.APP.LI84/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; lA.APP.l 186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,829/2008; LA.AP]'.844/2008; (Cross-Obj ections); LA.APP.899/2008; CM.No.709/2009 LA.APP.974/2008 LA.APP.976/2008; IA.App.No, :il95/?,008 & connncted Appeal.sof Village Bharlhal I.A App. No. Z91/2010 h corineded Appp.al.sof Village Bijwa.^an LA.App. r-Jo. Ill/.IOIO & connecteci Appeai.sof Viliaga Pochariour' PagE)2of2!3 (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008 LA.APP,1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP.l 197/2008 LA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008;-LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No,3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 128il/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 & LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; l.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA. APP.511/2009; I.A,APP.572/2009; LA.APP,404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2C09; LA. APP.466/2009; LA.APP.49Q/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 1^/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; •CM.No.95iy20i: LA.APP. 121/2009 LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA. APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.,APP.211/2009; LA.APP.22Q/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.224./2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24l/2009; LA.APP.245,/2009 LA.APP.295/2009 LA. APP.447,.'2009 LA.APP.480/2009 LA. APP.491/2009 LA.APP.503/2009 LA.APP.509/2009 LA.APP.513/2009 LA. APP,45/2010 .A.APP.l 138/2008; 17\.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.i35/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM,No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.3 05/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.APP.481/2009 LA. APP.493/2009 LA. APP. 5 06/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA,APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.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 23.10.20021Village Bharthal,-Delhi) (GRID-B) LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BIJWAS, DEVENDER KUMAR Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 Appellant Through; ,Mr.R,S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh lA.App. iMq .1]9:;/Z008 & connectod Appeals of VillageBharlhal i.A.App, No. 294/2010& connectadAppeaLsofVillageBijwasah LA.App No. U1/2010& connected AppfiaLsof Village Pochanpu.' . Pago 3 of 29 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA.APP. r.A.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 • 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/201-0 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & ' Respondents Through: . Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior-Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates ; forLlOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOI, Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI ; Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharina and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. U'/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221./20J0 LA.APP. 24:6/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 43:8/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 739/2010 LA.APP. 28:6/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010^ LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA..APP..362/2010 • LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 !.A,.4PP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 (Cross-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010

55.'2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010-358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/20)0

722.''2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&'B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the ;Laud Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) : AND 1A.App. No .119.'j/2008& connected AppnaLsof Village;Bharth:al i.A.App. No:2'3'!//.010& connHctc'.dAppna!sofViliageBijwasan '..A.App. No. & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . l-age 4 of 2!) % # (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 lA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEiPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesforappellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant hi 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 Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. 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. 111/2010 160/201,0 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 .395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' J 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 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.A.PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA,APP. LA,APP, LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APP-. L/V.APP. LA,.APP. LA.APP, L.A,APP, LA.APP, LA,APP. 155/2010 .209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2'010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/2011-591/2011 . 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 5357201 1 LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.. LA.APP. l.,A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP, UA.App. No. 1195/2008& conncctodAppealsofVllla(5GBharthal l7\.App.No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App No 311/2010&conneclndAppealsofVlllap,cPochanpui (Relating to Notification No. F.l0(30.)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

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

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of;learnedcounsel for the partiespresent at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoaficaUonNo.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 'DwarkaPhase- //' 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 agricultural land in one compact bloclc comprisingof thirteen Revenue Kstates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., y\ward No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-200jgranting compensation ^13.82 lacs per acre for Block A (level field —with top soil) and @^12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue ofthei,- acquired l.A.App.[\fo. 1195/2008& connectedAppeals.ofVill3f5eBharthai. U'i.App. Np. &connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan iy\.App.Mo. 111/?.010& connectedAppealsofVillaRePochanpur agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, furthqr enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of Riupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board ys. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors,, (2011) 2 SCC 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs\ State ofGoa and Anr,,

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

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala

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

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 20,11(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr,, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors" 20] 0(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab S. Ors., 2011 (9) SCAL]^ 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik v's. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 1I SCC 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & -Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No, 4143/2003 titled as Smt, Indu Khorana ra. Grain. Sabha & -Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr w, M.K, Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsihhai Dfvjibkai and ors vs'. Executive Engineer, l.A.App. No..115!)/?0088; connnctod Appeals of VillageSharlhai i.A.App, No.?.94/2010& connKctedAppeals of Village Bijwasaiii .A,App. No in/20.10 & connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' ' • PagG7of29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2Q01 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC llS-RisalSingh & Ors. Fs, UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union I ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 169GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr',, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Makesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; liapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20]1) DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority &. Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead) by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. ARP.' No.656/2008titled as Sushil.Kumarvs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. AFP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram w. Union of India, decidedo'n 07.06.2011;'and EhuleRam ra. UnionofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371. :

¶6On the strength,of the aforesaid decisions^at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to iappreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeepnig in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near Ibturealone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Lomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two-parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. No. 1195/2003&connectedAppealsofVillage Bhariha! ' IA .ftpp. No. 291/2010&connecvedAppealsofVillageDijwasan ' l.A.App.i\lo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagHPochanpurI ' ' p- . and Oil Depots of Indian Oil; and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-,8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again, divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed 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 Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquu'cd in the year 1984;for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli,and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks\sizrasIto highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous. :

¶8It was strenuously urged:by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof 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 ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 24^'^ October, 1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Roiit, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama 1A.App. No. 1195/:'.008 & connocted Appeals of VillageBharlhal: !AA|:p.,IMo.291/7.010 & connecUid Appeals of VillaRe Bijwasan . , • LA.A[;p. .1.11/MlO& connectcd Appealsof VlllagG Pochanpur Pago9 of 29 Reddi&Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been,consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana&. Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepmg mview 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 buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to t62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethai these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Courtin AnjmiiMolu Bessai vs. StaleofGoa andAm., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representmgthe marketprice of the lanci which comes to ?57 lacs per aerc and smce the sale!exeropliirsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon theminimumrales/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueoftlie acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquired land was souglit by Mi.R.Cjodara,learned counsel fpr the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates tixcd by the Government and also on the basis of pre- . determined rates fixed by the Governmentfor allolmem of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,sitrtationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is IAAp.o.Nc).1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVilla^^^ i , . ' LA.App. No. 2J4/?,0.1.0&connoctcdAppealsof VillageBIjwssan • LA.App No. 11J/2010&connmedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i '• Page10of29 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 iPhase-I or on the basis of the Pre-I Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,a,ppellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of.LA. App. No. 295/2009has; assailed-theimpugnedjudgmenton the following grounds:- ; a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the , respondent about th^^ yiward No.26/2002-2003dated

23.10.2002 being flaM>ed in the course of the • proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) ,1 h) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice • dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates of land in the area for more thai^ 15 years before tJie 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 variousdecisionsincluding-in one of the more recent decisions^ of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus tdhsildar, 2010(3)see 661. d) Ignores the evidence 'and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining the value ofthe land under acquisition. I e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Courtwhereasas per the law established by the HotilbleSupreme Court in the recent . case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Ciyil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Ilon'ble Supreme Cout^t has specifically held that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin lA.App. No. ll;)!;/2008& connectedAppealsof VillageUharthal • LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVlllagGliljwasan ! •LA.App. No. .1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 1 . , PapellofZS case the average sale iprice is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of .sales transactions .should be considered while adjudicating upon conkpensationupon a. certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC •. No.97A/2b06to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material -which indicate that the market value of the land, is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and 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 of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rejused to return an .actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. \ g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village •Dhool Siras-and Bharthal was changed, and these areas ceased to be agricultural and • came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The mMsterplan and 'Notifications of Government for land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and. other permissibleuses. It is\alsopertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"^ amendment • of the Constitution of IndJa. 'w.e.f. 1.6:1993 IX A, by virtue of which the '.Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was • deemed a nmnicipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Pancha.yat elections were held in. the area. ; h) Refused to. apply the': law laid down in AIR. Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vi'. Union of India and refused to consider the fact that the development in the area has a direct',effect on the price that a willing purchaser wovddpay for the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact thip Respondent No. 2 had' also LA.App. No. 1195/Z008 & connccted Appeals of Villaee Bharthal • LA.App. No. 294/MlO& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwa.'jan | bA.App. .Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof Villagp.Pochanpur1 Paf,e IZ of 29 i, 4 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concludedthat 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. I k) Does fwt take into accountthe possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purpose,s of Dwarka Phase

¶11It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and • Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. : I I) Ignored Notifications 'dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 • although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality ofthe said land. In Sangunthala v, Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held that thepurposefor which land is acquiiyd is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhasgot 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 bv the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential . quarters.As a portion\ofthe land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse 'as housesitesin the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis byiVed Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual detailshaj'e been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treaited at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsinthesebunchofappeals. M. , Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfof the appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof LA.App. Mo. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal .l,A.App. No. 294/2010&. conncctedAppealsofVNIage Bijwasan I^A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur urbanizationof the lands in the Villages in question,i.e., the change in land use has been considered,in Mahesh Dattairay Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapM Mekra (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 pf the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence ioi-determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the jland in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect ^ market value of the acquiredglands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsinJai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; £al Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APR No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar w. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was'urgedthat sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBhart.hal' l7\.App.No. 294/2010& connecledAppealsofVillageBijwasan ' LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVlllaBoPochanpur ' I'agoWofZg and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketWouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale mstance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideratidn.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objectqr that adoption of L& DO ratcs/Pre-DctcrmmcdRates cannot be'countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai ^(supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SushUKumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra). ;

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned spnior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the mmmuim mdicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on ] Apri], 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of 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 thatthere 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 RclerenccCourt:while'takinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to bo brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. •

¶17Alter considering the rjval submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon iccoidand the decisionscited,what emergesis.thatthe truemarketvalue of the comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling I.A.App. No. 1195/2008&connnctRdAppealsof VillageBharthal ; LA.App, No. 294/2010&connGCtndAppealsof Village Bijwasan ; i.A.App, No. 1.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur; ,0 o Page 15 of 2.9 iU seller and the best evidence is tHe comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof piDtentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass fs. Staie of Haiyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationof the acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because ofits explosivepopulation;

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

(Hi) possibilityof obtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants of buildings to beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin 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 m.ay become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and\ I

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

¶181he potentialityof land for the purpose,of developmentas also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said I purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for I 1A.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharthal \ lA.App. No. 2,')4/2010& connected Appealsof VillageBljwasan W.App, [|(5..l.ll/2t)10&connectGdAppoaLsofVillagePochanpur | Page16 of29 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 Avlnash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Aima Singh (supra) that the-,exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces :of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands|reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MJC Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

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

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

¶21Apex Court in VaUiyamnia! (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development'charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessai (Supra) deserve altention, which are as under:- lA.App, K'o. 1.195/2008& connccled Appealsof VillagG Bharlh^l \ lA.App, IMo. ?.9'5/2010& connectcidAppealsofVillagR Bijwssan ' LA.App. Mo. 1.1.1/2010&connGcicdAppealsof VillagePochanpur I "The legal position is thai: even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars,[which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where 'the values disclosed in respect of tM>o sales are markedly \dijferent, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale\ is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to.. " \ .

¶22ll would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching obsei'vations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakini Patil (Supra), M'hich are as follows:- "//' is well settled thdf genuine and bona fide sale transactionsin respect of the land under acquisitionor in its absence the bonafide 'sale transactionsproximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place betyveen'a willing vendee and the willing vendor 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 _ reiterated by the Apex Court in; Oil ami Natural Gas Corporation.ML

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:-: "Primarily, the increase',in land prices depends on four factors - situation of thd, land, nature of developmentin surrounding area.,, availability of land for development in the area, and-the demand for land in. the area. In rural ,areas unless there is anj;^ prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps:. i.A.App.-.No.]195/2008 & connocted Appfialsof VillageBharllial i.A.App No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillaRG Bijwasan I.A.App. No. in/2'Oiaa connected Appealsof VillagePochar,pur I Pagel8of29 On the other hand, in ui\ban or semi-urban areas, where the developmentisfaster, inhere the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural ared^. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development\and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreper year, during the nineties.On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2%, per annum'. There is \ thvis a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in Imarket value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value-in urhan/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, 'the corresponding increcises in rural areas would at best be '• only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%)per annum.. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or . any specific evidence Yelating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied-would depend upon , the same. \ • • I . I Normally, recourse is-taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the ' proved.marketvalue of,nearby lands in previousyears (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany c6.ntem.poraneoussale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyond thai it may be unsafe, ^ven 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 determ.ining the market value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual: increase method with, reference to a sale or LA.App. No. Iiy5/200S gi connfictedAppaalsofVillage Bh'arthai • l.A.ApD.No. 2.M/2010& connncted Appealsof VillageBijwasan; LA.App. No. .1.1.1/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanp'lir Page 19of29 acquisitionin 1970or iPSO may have manypitfalls. This is becaus.e, over the course of years, the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfunde,rgo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrence\ofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease. " i

¶24This Courtis mindfulofVne dictumofthe Apex Courtin Hmyana. StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- i I "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)d,re acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming of a | residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshould be avoided and a uniform,rate ofcokipensationshoiddbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25IJndisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquiieci land of Village Bharthal., Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Poehanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiouisinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwamiSatsang Beas I had purchased the agricultural!land in Village Poehanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. . i

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Dpeds (Hx.PW-174to Ex.PW-l/l0) Avhich are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersmd Radha SwamiSatsang, heas in lespectofthe compactblockol land measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePoehanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of I the landin the villagesin questiohis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds l/>.App.No. 1.195/2008a connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal • LA.App. No. 2S4/20.10&connuctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' I7\ App. No. 1.U/2030&conncctodAppealsof VillagePoehanpur ; ' ' ' Page 20 of 29' (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicate that its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sEile I exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.|PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was! dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale 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-lMto Ex.PW-l/lO)has not been brought out as the purchaseij/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcLiaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been I 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 Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25"^ March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Ra] Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 19,9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for th6 acquiredlands.

¶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 being used for agriculturalpurposetill their. acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing I.A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageSharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageCijwasari LA.App. No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoclianp'ur Page 21 of 2!) market price of the land m question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Colirt the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (]vx.PW-]/4 to lix.PW-l/lO) : have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. |

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

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Prc-Dctcrmined Rates for the ialternate plots by the DDA ought to be I adopted to determine the truq 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 Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors^, 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as undcr:- "/2. However, in either'of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land,with building potentiality witl^. reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a yvell developed,layout in the neighborhood \ I LA.App. Mo. 1133/200i-&conner.lBd.AppHalsof VillageBharthali l.A.App. No. 2.9'J/.''.010& conncctedAppealsofVillage:Biiwasan | 1A.App. No. 111/?.010 & connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur; or whetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land, with buildingpotentiality with reference to thepricefetchedby sale ofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots ;in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be. the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties, with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date of the • publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots 'in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becom.es ayaila.ble, then what coidd be done',is to find out the marketvalue of the acquired land with i;eference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the actual use to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found]out according to its'actual user since resort to the meth'pd of giving increasedvalue for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicating that there was no im.me.diate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " :

¶31In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Prc-DeterminedRates in:determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehol^ lands. I'ollowing the dictum 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 not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of !A.App. n,9!;/?.008& conncctndAppealsof Village? Bharthai lA.App. No. 291/2010& connnctcdAppealsof Village Bijwasan ' i.A.App.No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillaSePochanpur ; the imdevclopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's PrG-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the marketvalue of the acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whether progressiveincrease method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the I land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBhaijthaland othervillagesfor developmentot I • Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the ^ year 1984 till the year. 20!00, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor development|ofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectpris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. ;

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ol the dictum ol the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincrease iTiCthod,in assessmentof the maiket value ol the ^ acquiredland'only when the;gapis of 4-5 years and beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates! to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofa few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e.-, of DwarkaPhasc-I and Dwarka Phase-Ilis ofsixteenyears and therefore,itwould be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the :market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. ]19b/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBha.ihal L^.App, No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillaBe Bijwas'an LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 24 of 29 escalationoverthe marketvalue of the nearbyland of the previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, : learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12%; per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. Alter having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher • potentialit)' of the acquired; land over and above the market value determinedby the Reference;Court has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) :escalation granted by the Reference Court @ 12% per annum cannotbe:reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsof the respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%o per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Govei-nmentw.e.f 1'' April,2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not. ; ^

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland I pertaining to the Notifi'caticjnin 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 aforesaidNotificationdfthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto I.A.App. No. ]195/2003& connectGdAppealsofVillage Bharthnl lA App. No. ml20\0 &, co.nncctedAppealsofVillageBijwasati LA.App, No.:1.1,7.010&connectedAppealsof Villagel'ochan[3ur ' 25 gf ^9 picsume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlandsi. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Sotsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder;Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were;put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasemprice due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquiicd lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirjhandson othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance ' of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-pll)without leading any' evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarso[Radha Swami SaLsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/jl) cannot'be treated to be sufficient giound to giant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in vi?w of the afore-referreddictum ofthe Apex Court in Haiyana State\IndustrialDevdopmem Corporation (HSJDC)(Supra),unrformrate oifcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the saine Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Ggvenimentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors:in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is a gap between what l-A.App.No. 1W5/2008&connnctodAppealsof VillageBhartha! i ' l-A.App.Mo. 294/2010&connoctcidAppaal.-;of VillageBljwasan ; 1,A.App. No. 1.11/20.10&connactBdAppealsof VillagePochanaut i- •o would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's;minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by • coordinate Bench of this CoUil in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38Hiis Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in I the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Innding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the I evidence on record. But I fmdtliat the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGl Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and; of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 1,00 meters Vide road starting from NH-8 Irom Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I 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, hi 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-1. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market • • • value of the acquired lands'!as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the L'l.App.!Ma. 119;)/>:008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharlhai' LA.App. No. 291/2010& connected AppealsofVillageBijwasan; LA.App. No; 1.11/2010 & connected AppeBi.<;of Village Pochanpur Page 27 of 2!) settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NimsherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its market value takinginto account the increasein price attributable tosuch buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact theit it would be very difficultto providea definite value qua potential,apd in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is bioadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices (or the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedtp grant 10% increase'over and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourt in these matters on account of the aioresaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof I/-.App Mo. 119V2008&cormncledAppealsof VillaReBharthal i lA.App, Mo. 7.91/;'010&contiKcledAppealsof VillageBijwasan • 1 • • l/v.App No. .1,1.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ! • Papa 28 of 29 •o the appellants of Village Poqhanpur are also, allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Ihiis, the maijlcetvalue ofthe acquiredlands ofthese three villagesin questionis determined@f16,50,00()/-per;3j#J'forthe ' c A, 1 , . ^ =r- ' -V Category A land and @^14,:69,600/-per bipha for the Category'B' lands in question. ; I I I

¶41On the aforesaid enharicement in the compensation awarded, I staiutoiy benefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Siiiider V5. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are gianted,excepttor the periodv,^herethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi which periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hcse appellantswouldjbeentitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. ; January 06, 2012 pkb l.A./\pp.No. .1195/2008& conncctcdAppealsof Village Bharthal IA.App. No. 2y'V?.010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l7\.App.No. 111/7.010& connecledAppealsofVillagePochanpur JUDGE f' ' ' 10 5- / rr-f f Pago 29 of 29 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 | RANBIRSliARMA : Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan:Mr.AmitMaan,MrJaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.J^egiand Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Ml-.S.K.Rout,;Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentinappealsfiledby UOI) Mr. SudhanshU Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. W Mr.B.D. Shaiima,Mr.S.K.Solanki and Ml".S.K.Rout; Advocates versus ; UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. I Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPdthalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerina,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, • Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalShannaand Mr.Somer K'.Seth, Advocates for DDA. H CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR I O RPER o/, •

12.01L2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 (For^correction). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice AApp.No.1195/2008 ! St-W':-' ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. ' rne typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'" January. 20ifl is that in paragraph no: 40 of the arore.saidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per ,cre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatfre referenceto 'perbigha'inpai-agraph no: 40 of LA.App.No: 1195/feoOS be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe cajiied out fortliwith. In viewot^theaforesaid,|this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb JUDGE LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 1161/2008 PREM LATA & ANR. Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.JitinTewathia,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 Ansaii, . 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