Tek Chand Deceased Thr. Lrs & Ors v. UOI & Ors

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1.195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb N THE H.GH COURT OF I)ELHI AT NEW DELHI / Li:Qlic?c .Q!quqiyO6

(GRH)-A) LA.APP. 1] 95/2 G 008 (VILLAE... BHA RTIIAL) RAN.J3IR STARM.A Appellant I1irouh: Mr.R.S.Maan Mr.Arnjt Maan, Mr.Jaj Prakash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna Mr.Jitjn Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anjta Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohias Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinijer Godára, Advocate Mr.N.S.Ncgi and Mr.H.S.Rautela Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, and Mr.B.K,Routray, Mr.M.Azarn Ansari. Advocates. Mr.Panka,j V vek, / dv ocate Mr.Rajcsh Yaa. Mr. i)eepak Khosia, Mr.Samjt Khosla and Mr. I)hanalija\' Melilawat, Advoc ates Mr.ILS.laujeja, dvc,cate Mr.l.S.Dahiya Advocate Mr. Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Nvlr.Atu] Jriparhi, /\dvocaje Mr.N.S.Negi and MriI.S.Raula (i•d'oeates Ii respondent n. appals flied by E !(A) versus :10N OF INJ)IA & ANR. Respondents I hruuh: Mr.Sarijav Poddav. Senior / dvocate wiij Mr.S Pathaic IVIr l(1h rtl \/Ic Ms K Kwniudi R n ir uLa( t( '

Mr.A jay Veripa, Msi3eenashaw Soni, MrMukesJ Kumar, Mi- . K Sc thi, J\ir.Pawar Mathur. Mr. K unal .Shiny)a, Advocaic f: [)i)/\, •t\ A PP4 I 2/2008 L .AAIP.69 •1, 2008 CM No 51 0/2009 &: (Cross-OH (Cross-C bjcctis) C \-1. NO.5990/201 (Cross-Qhj((t O1 ). L (Cross-ObiCCijOi5) AP P.70 1 t200 8 & I..;VAP P. 77012t U O. 1ifoO3. & Coifloctod ppoiiIs of V7Iige BiOf;jJ ( oriiieoo. d Aprq,.jk of '/if1c

pi: .\ if /70.it) & conhii(d \pp oVijIir( crrIpLIi of 2) n S t.A.AP11 .77 I /2008 & CJ\'i.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.772/2008; !A.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.61 I /2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; 1,A.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); JA.APP.783/2008; 1,A.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP798/2008 & CM.No61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP799/2008 & CM.No.9 3 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008 LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.81 3/2008 & CM.No. 1 7c)5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 14/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 18/2008; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; 1 A.APP829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.A1 1 P.832/2008; LA.APP.83.312008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008 LA.APP873/2008 & CM.No.779/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 92/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.899/2008; 1,A.APP901/2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.95 1/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); i.A.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 1912009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP. 1 029/2008& CM.No. 1 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1031 '2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); 1 A APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; I AAPP. 047/2008;LA.APP. I 048/2008& CM.No.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420,'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 105012008; LA.APP. 1 051/2008 & CM.No. 1 7262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1 052/2008; LA.APP. 1 053/2008 & CM,No.4 16/2009 (Cross-Ohjections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & C1\4,No.752/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No. 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 10591/2008 & CM.No. 1 7259/2008(Cross-Ohjections); LA.APP. I 060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1 .A.APP. I 073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.62312009 (Cross-Objections); I ..A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.244/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA..APF. 1 087/2008& CM.No.61 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP. I 093/2008; A.APP. ] 094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; LA.APP.1 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1 108/2008 & CM.No3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 10912008; LA.APP. 1110/2008 &. CM,No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); L.A.APP..1 111/2008; LA.APP.1 112/2008 & CN'LNo3831/2009 (CrossrObjections): 1_A.APP.1 I 13/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (C;oss-Objections); LA.APP.1 1 15/2008; LA.A.PP.1 1 J6/2008; LA.APP.1 121,'2008; 1 A.APP. 1126112008; LA.APP. 1129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 Sr. CM.No .566/2009 (Cross-Objections); A.A PP. 1133/2008; LA,APP. 1135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); I.A.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No.l 7283/2008 (Cross-Objections); 1.AAPP. I. 14012008; LA.APP.1 156/2008; LAAPP.1 157/2008; LA.APP.1 158/2008 & CM.No7774!2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.1 159/2008; LA..APP. 1161/2008; LA. APP.1 I 66/2008; LA.APP. 11 67/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1168/2008;

1...A,APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP. 11 71/2008; LA.APP. 1172/2008; LA.APP. 117.3/2008; I.A.APP, 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; .LA.APP. 1179/2008; L.A.APP. 1181/2008; LA.APP. 11 82/2008; LA.A1.P. ii 83/2008& CM.No.6933!2009 (Cross-Objections); i..A.APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008: 1.A.APP. Ii 86/2008& CM.No.701 312009 I A.App. No. I 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthd l.A Ape. No. 2.9/1/201.0 & connected Apiseals of Village Bijwasrn IJs.App. No. 111/2010 & connOcte Appeals of Village Pochanour Page 2 0129 c.cv (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008; LA.APP, 1193/2008; LA.APP, 1194/2008; LA.APP, 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; LA.APP. 1 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Ohjections); LA.APP. 1200/2008; 1A.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008; LA.AP1. 1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1241/2008& CM.No.3841 /2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008; 1 A.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; I A.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 1 84/2008; LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA. P.39/2009; L4,222.ü0. M.No.746/201 1 (Cross-Ob' ' . .APP.59/2009; i.A.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections);)LA.APP.74/2009; CM.No.953/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. I 09/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. I 37/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009; I A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 145112009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009: LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA..APP 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA. APP. 199/2009; LA.APP201/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP,203/2009; L.A. APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/201 1 (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APp.21 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; i.A.APP.222/20O9; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP227!2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24 1/2009; L.A.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009;. LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; i..A.AP11,367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.App466112009: 1.A.APP.4801/2009; LA.APP.481/2009; 1,A.APP.489/2009; 1,A.APP.490/2009; LA.A.PP.491/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.494i'2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009: LA.APP.506,!2009; I ./\.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.A.PP.509/20O') LA..APP.5 10/2009; LA.AP11.51 1/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP,513i'2009 1,AAPP.567/2009; LA,APP.572/2009 LA.API. 1 5/20] 0; LA.APP45/201 0; LA.APP.48/201 0; 1 .A.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP. 1176/2008; I .A.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP, 1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F. 1 0(30)/96/L& B/LA/i 3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bhartha!,Delhi) (GRID-B) L2r9lQLi Pronounced

LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- fflJWASAN) l)1IVENI)ER KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: ,Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh If.App. No 1195/2003 & connected Appeals of Village Thrthal I '\.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan .A.App No. 1 L/010 & connected Appeals of Village Pothanpu . S It Advocates Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant • (in R-2-14, 38, 4 1-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus TJOI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kurnar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav. and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solankj 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.[3ankcy Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. I.A.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 5112010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP.• 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 I..A.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 L.A.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/201.0 I..A.APP. 100/2010 LA.A}P. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010

1..A.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 • , LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/201.0 LA.AP'P. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.API, 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 ]A.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351.'2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 ,

. LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2.010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 365,2010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP.361/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP, 363/2010 I..A.APP. 405/2010 LA.A1P. 406/2010 . LA.APP 407/2010 LA.A.PP. 408112010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.A1P. 438/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 L.A.APP. 22/2.010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP, 72.5/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 . 1..A.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732./2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/20,10 T.A.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA. APP. 77/20 10 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 'Cross-objcctions) (Relating to Notification No. F, i0(30)96-L& B / LA/i 3417 'dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, 'Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of V8Iage Bbartnal l..A.Apo. Nc'. 2.9/!/,.OiO& connected Appeals of Village Bijwasai A.App. No. '11 /20.1.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur It Page 4 of29 . No (GRID-C) Reserved 20]] Prono unced 2012 LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLA;E POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Sojanlcj 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 13 Kurnar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INI)IA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kurnar Pathak, Mr.Mohjtrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain. Advocates for UOi/LAC Mr.Baflke\' Biharj Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA: LA,APP. 111/2010 LA,APP 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 254/2010 LA.APP. 292/2010 LA.APP. 307/2010 LA.APp. 395/2010 LA APP. 420/201 0 LA.APp. 466/2010 LA.APp. 637/2010 LA.APP, 660/2010 LA.App. 767/2010

1.A,APp. 919/2010 LA. APP. 65/2011 LA,App, 120/2011 LA.APP, 476/2011

1.A.App. 523/201 1 LA.App. 536/2011 LA.APp. 154/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.APp. 260,'2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP, 317/2010 LA.API.. 396/2010 LA.APP. 432/2010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APp. 639/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APP. 768/20] () LA.App. 1052/2010 LA.APp. I 16/2011 LA.APp. 121/2011 LA.APP, 485/201 .1 LA.APp. 525/201.1 LA.APp. 554/2011 LA.APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 LA.APP. 261/2010 LA.APp. 305/2010 LA.APP. 392/2010 LA.APP. 397/2010 L.A,APP. 433/2010 LA.APP. 5771/2010 LA.APp. 640/2010 LA.APp, 741/2010 IA APP 784/2010 LA.APP. 6 1/201 1 LA.App. 117/2011 LA.APP. 129/201 L.A.App. 521/2011 LA,APP, 526/2011 LA.APP. 591/2011 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP, 215/2010 LA.APP. 250/12010 LA.APP, 2701/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 LA.APP. 393/2010 LA.APP. 412/2010 LA.APP. 434/20 1.0 LA.APp. 635/2010 LA.App. 657/2010 LA.APp. 758/2010 LA.APP. 918/2010 LA.APp. 64/20 11 LA.APP. 119/2011 LA.APP. 429/2011 LA.APP .522/2011 LA.j-\pp. 535/2011 l.A.App. No. 11.95/2008 & connected Appeals of ViHage Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village llijwasan LAApp No 111 12010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanur. (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& 13/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012 Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Notification No.F 10(3096-L& B/LA/]341 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. Acquisition process for planned development of 'Dwarka Phase-1/' in T)elhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13 December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block • comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, i3ijwasan and Pochanpur. Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003 ;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation 13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field with top)ii) and O T12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (without top soil).

i)issatisfled with the assessment of market value of their âcqufred LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l.A.Apo, No, 29d12010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanp,ir Page 6 o 29 It S 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 @ Z15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ Z13.36 lacs per acre for their i3lock 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochañpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnalaka housing Board i's. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and

(2011) 2 SCC 246; Anjani Molu Dcssai vs. State of Goa andAnr.,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh Rain and Ors vs. S/ate of Haryana andAnr.,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; C7iindha Fakira Patil

(I)) through LRs i's. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! ij's. Union of.tndia, 2002 (62) I)RJ 227; Rarna A/and (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India & Anr., 2002 (65) I)RJ I (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,. 2010(9) SCALE 41; Ghakas i's. Slate of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavajj Nadi vs. Slate of Maharashtra, (2009) f i SCC 171; Atmix Singh (Dead,) through LRs and Ors 3'S. State of Harpana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.((,) No, 41.43/2003 titled as Sint. indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 71 4; Thakarsihhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, IA.App. No. .l1fb/2OO8 & connected Appeak of Village 3harthai .A.App. No. 294/O1O &. connected Appeals of ViUage Bijwasan A.App. No 11 a,'20.1O & connected Appeals of Village Pohanpir . . Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Ghand vs. Union I of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General IVianager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valilyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Ailahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatrap Thirthkar vs. Stdte of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Me/ira (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of india & Anr, 176(201 1) I)LT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled. as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; On, Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) Ii SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of Thclia, decided on

26.09.2() ii; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhu!e Ram vs. Union of India, 2010

(170) DLT 371. . o. on the strength of,the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural, land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must he adjudged keeping in viw the development in the area over a period of lime and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar, counsel for appellants that Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage raflway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e, on the eastern side of the railway line is the tGI Airport, Nev I)clhi I A.Ap. No. I 05/2003 & connected Appeals of Village Sharihal App. No. 294120.10 & connected Appeals of Vlllap,e Bijwasan A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochnpu . and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NF1-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-If 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 Samalkha. 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 1(11 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 acquired in the year 1984 for development of I)wark.a Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages I3amnoli and I)hool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the a/cs sizras/rnap to high]ight that the boundary ot' Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village I)hool Siras are contiguous. It 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 he agricultural in spite of Notification of 16" October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed frbin agriculturai to resident iai/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to be rura] in view of the Notification of 2411 October, 1 994 It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants, that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rarna I./\App. No, 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Vfllage Bharthal IA App., No. 294/200& connected Appeak of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. .111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur '' I keddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officei, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udijo Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in View the developient in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition if the authorities do not put: the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building Potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.I3.D.Sharia, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from Z52 lacs to !62 lacs and merely because of the said variation these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to Conclude that these sale exemplars are Overvalued because ol any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Aij1 Mo/u Dessiji v. State qf Goa (indAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the iarkct price of the land which comes to Z57 • lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the Reference Court upon thernjnjmum rates/circle rates for detenTlining the

market value of the acquired land is patently, erroneous.

¶11Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara learned counsel for the appellants On the basis of the L& f)O rates flxed by the Governient and also on the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the Governrit for allotment of alternat plots in the year 2000-2001 Keeping in view the locatib, situation and Potentiality of the acquired land, detèrrnjiiatjon of its market value is IA App No. 1195/2008 & connc.ctpd Appeals of V8lage Bharthal l.A App. No. 294/200 & connected AppeaR of Village Bijwasan IA Ape No iJ1I2ep & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Sarnalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in I)warka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-I)eterrnined Rates (PI)Rs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant - Impulse India Private Limited of I.A. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- 'ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ pelition No. 19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated

¶77.2007) Does not account jbr the fici that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely qflected the rates of land in the area for, more than 15 years before the Noqfication under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the ioveinmen1 ofivational Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the Hon 'hie Supreme Court in Sangunthala vcrsus Tahsildur, 2010(3) SCC 661. Ignores the evidence and other flictors which as per e.tablished law has to be considered before ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition. Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale l)eeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon 'b/c Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Pat ii versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apea/ lVo.5475 of 2007. The lion 'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in IA.App. No .11)5/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I A.App. NC), 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village ltijwasan l.A.App. No ....11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanour case the average sale price is lower. Euther in Anjana Mo/u Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(73) 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 acjudtcaiing upon compensation upon a certan land. J?e/ied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A aid 13, 36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the lion 'ble Supreme Court . including in Subh Rain vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) 8CC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.] firamed on 27.2.2007. Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notificat ion of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharihal was changed and these area,s ceased to be agricultural and caine now under the urban boundaries of i)eihi State. The masterplan and !Vott/?cations cf Government for land use change show that in 1iture land can be sub/ected to residential commercial and other permissible uses. ills also pertinent to mentijn that the appellant lead evidence in respect of the 741h amendment of the Constitution qf India. wef 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Munici,ai Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municia/ area and the inunic,al Counsellor - was elected from there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 34'67, i?anvir Sing/i and Anr vs. Union of India and refused to consider the met that the developthent in the area has a direct effrci on the price that a willing purchaser would pay for the subject land ü ignored the mci that Reponcient No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & Connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/:010 & connected Appeals of Village Bliwasan LA.App. No, .1.1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ... auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of aboui Z2. 6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. .1) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the ire-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k) 1)oes not lake into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of i)warka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and B ha rtha! was changed and ihese 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 Sangunt ha/a v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 ii was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value (?f the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to he used far building purposes in immediate or in near future neecLc to be considered. 171) The presence of' a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied &v the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in helter use as house sites in the near future." In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have been provided with a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of l.A.App. No. .1195/2008 ,& connected Appeals of Village Bharthal i.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village E3ijwassn LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur • . urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar i's. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kcipi! Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) l)L1' 361 and that Pre-J.)etern-ijned 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 asess 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.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged thatthough as per Section 51-A of Lana' ./lcquisilion Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale I)eed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot he taken as relevantevjdence for determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to he considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpai & Ors vs. Union of india, (1997) 11 SCC 423; La! (hand vs. Union of India and Anr., ( )009)15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/'2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot he taken to be realistic until reasonsfor such sharp increase are explained by producin.g in èvidei-ce the seller LA./\pp, No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.AApp. No. 11 J/O]o & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of.Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideratjoii Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre l)ctermjned Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! (hand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate I3ench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by M.r.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the nlinimurn indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneousLy determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no Scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as axed by the I.and Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be rnodhed deleting the enhancement by the Reference Court while taking into consideration the appreciation 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-- Objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival suhmi)fl5 advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned judgment, the evidenc, on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid byvi11ing purchaser toa willing LA.App. No. 119S/7008 & Ai\ connected Appeals of VUlago Bharth)j I pp, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A Apt No 1r112C?10 & COflnOCtCdAppp, of Village Pochanpur a seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to he considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALP. 41 in these words:- '(i,) the situation of the acqufred 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 ather kind of importance or because of its explosive population; NO the suitability of the acqufred land/or putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be, puss jhility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land, absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purpose, existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proxin'zily of the acquired land; I

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health• care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the .acquired land which may become available to the occupiers o/buzldings, if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in dthiand ,fr.r building purposes, to spec ifi' afew.

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of lactors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have 1:0. hear in mind the purpose for A.App. No. .1 19/70O8 & connected Appeals of VHage Bharthal li\.App. NC) 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village I3ijwsan .A.App. NO. 11112010 & connected Appeals of ViHage Pochanpur at I which the lands were sought to he acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in A/ma Singh (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land retied upon by the appellants could not be a groundto discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land. It 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 th agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is • equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with advantage. Apex Court in Valliyammal (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 observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mo/u Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- A.App. No. I 105 2003 & cortriected Appeals of Village Bharthjl IA,App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No. 1.1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of VilIag Poclianpur It "The legal position is that 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 of similar 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 two sales are markedly diffrrent, 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 ta.." 40 22. it would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in. Chindlia Fakira Pall! (Supra), which are as foil ows : - "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the honafide 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 willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between -easonahie prudent persons ' acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value.

¶23Principles to determine the rnarkei value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONG() (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availabliTh.' 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, without any sudden spurts orjumps A.App. No. ].]95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal i.A.App No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan [A.App. No.

131.12030& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu It On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as cQmpared to rural areas. In some pockets in big ciies, due to rapid development and high demand Jbr land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or in ore per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any, buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas, Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of ii, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refrs to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specfIc evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate Of increase, or any spec fic 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 by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lanthi in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisilion), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale lranactions/acquisitions precedes the subiecl acquisition by only afew years, that is upto four tofive years. Beyond that ii may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a riiahlestanda,'d if the gap is only, a years, may become unsa/ and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example. fOr determining the market value of a lana' acquired. in 1992, adopting the annual increase method ii'ilh ref?rence to a sale or LA.App. No. I 1 951MP. & connected AppeaR of Village Bharthal .AApo. No. 29L1!201Q & connected Appeals of Village !iijwasan I.AApo No .1]..1/?OiJ & connected Appeals of Village FocOanpor acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'i-the' of annual increase may itself undeico drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence ofiVarying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard 0/increase.

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods What was said by the Apex COurt in HSIDC (Supra) is as under: 'When different categories of lands (or lands with dlfferent situational advaniages are acquired for the same purpose, say for /rn2ing of a residential /ayou1 courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with refrence to p-evious status or situation should be avoided and a unlform rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notfIcation." Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired iand of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale J)ecds vide which religious inStItution, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricuFtural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from 52 lacs to Z62 iacs per acre. Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds 0Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-l/j 0) which are basically between one set of Co--Owners and Radha Swami Satsang, Beas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemIars, i.e., Sale 1)eeds l.A,App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of V2lage flharthal I.A.App. No. 294/20.10 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No 11 .1/2010 & connectcd Appe.ils of Village Pochanpur (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars Sale I)eeds (Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-l/1O) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village • Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW.-i/4 to Ex.PW-l/l0) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purchaser/vendee of 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 Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale I)eed executed on 25th1 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 Sing/i i's. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village Marnurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.Aop. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appea Is of Village I3harthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals ofviflage Bijwasan IA App. No. 11 11201 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . market price of the land in 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 Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Lx.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10). have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. So far as the sale exemplar of Village Sama.lkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale I)eed of 271h January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11.) was 'S situated on the National I-Iighway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/1 1) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot he treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question. Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to he considered as to whether adoption of L& 1)0 circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-I)ctcrrnincd Rates for the alternate plots by the DI)A ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in cj Uesti On. Parameters governingfixati()fl• 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 AutlwritpHyderabadandOrs., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- •/2 /:Jowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with rejevence to the price fetched by a/e of plots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood A App. No. 1 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Vifage llharthal l.AApp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijasan IA App. Nc, 11 1201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur * or whether it he the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable Ibr the Court 10 find out what will be the price frtched or to be ./etched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched if sold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence of price fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done 5 to find out the market value of S the acquired land with reference to the relevant date qf 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 he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase, to be given shall not exceed 115th of the market value of the land found out according to it's actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, fr building plots even if/armed in the acquired land."

¶31In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by '41 the I)T)A after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-I)etcrminecl Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold Ians. Following the dictum of Lal Chand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra) has excluded the I)I)A rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of I A.App. No.1 19b/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Iiharths! I..A.App. No. 29412010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I A.App. No. 111/20.10 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the I)DA rates for allotment of developed land or the I)DA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question. Now what is required to he seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant, criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of l)warka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the çscalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of I)warka Phase-I and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-Il, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefor, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may beconie unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of i)warka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-Il is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing 'appropriate LI\.tipp. No. 1 19/200S & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village llijwasan IA.App. No 1111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpor escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/crossobjector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation ' lO% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acqired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court (I 12% per annum cannot he reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's nlinimum price of the agricultural land in I)elhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. I St April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals (ieserve.s to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining. to the Notificatjoii in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to le an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 241 October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Noiificatjon of the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed but that by iteJf is not sufficient to I A.App. No. I 195/200g & connected AppealS of Village E3hartha .A App. No. 94/200 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan tA.Apo. No. I Ii.')O 1 0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanptin Page 25 of29 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 development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Salsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence: on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) are comparable with the acquired lands and SO the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of \'iilage Samalkha (Lx. PW-1/1 1.) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensation while relying upon the 'aforesaid sale instances. Therefi)re, in view of the afbrereferred dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (I,lSID) (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awaided for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural 'land in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Takin.g note of the fact that there is a gap between what i'iü. J. i2u'JN & connect(d Appeak of Vdlage Bhartha I.A.App, No. 294/2010 & COflfloct(d AppealF. of ViHago Bijwasan ,A.uipp. No. 311 .120.10 & Connected Apeak of VWage Pochanpur $ would be expected to he the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to he reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases• of Jai Sing/i (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the, considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in l)elhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. l'inding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exernplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher pOtentiality of the acuired lands being in close vicinity of the 1(11 Airport Iidian Oil and Bharat Petroleum I)epots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NT-I-8 from Shiv Murti side to I)warka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm 1-Touses in the vicinity o1 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 bcihg in vicinity of I)warka hase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands• as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality, in the acquired lands is the IA i\pp. No. 1 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No: 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur settled legal position aptly highlighted by the .Apext Court in Mirza NauSheJwan K/ian vs. ('ollector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the inth-ease in price attributable to such buildingpotenlializy. "

¶39Considering the fast that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing •fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village .Bijwasan. However, while relying Upon the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 1 0% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court in these matters on account 'of the aforesaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding 1 0% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village i3ijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharlhal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of i\App No. 1190/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthul A.App. No, 294,2010 & connected Appeals of ViIlags Bijwasan . I A.App. No. .U.1/7010 & connocted Appesis of Village Pochanpur the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the. extent indicated above. I'hus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined 16,5O,Q00/- per(.bi-g1 for the Category 'A' land and @ Z14,69,600/- per b ' afor the Category 'B' lands in question.

On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 as explained in the judgment reported iii Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are a granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, lhr vhich period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall he paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of' this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. I)ecree sheets be according}y prepared. January 06, 2012 pkb \ (SUNIL (-I'rAUR) JUI)GE C I:12. ( LA.App. No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.App. NC) 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010 & connecled Appeals of Village Pochanpur \A2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Iviaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N. S .Negi and Mr.H. S .Rautela, Advocate Mr. S .K.Rout, Mr.B .K.Routray, Advocates. S Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocatesfor respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tornar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tornar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr,S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INI)IA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOi Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Arnita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M. Appi. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6th January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellantshave accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Pagel I of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 61h January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith, in view of the aforesaid., this application stands disposed of tSiNIL GAUR) JANUARY 12, 2012 JUDGE pkb LA.App.No. 1195/2 008 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI / Reserved on. November (,2011 Pronounced on: JanuarVOOL 2012 + LA.APP. 73/2009 TEK CHAND DECEASED THR. LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin 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.i)hananjay Mehiawat, 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 U'ilON 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