Ajit Singh Deceased Thr. Lrs & Ors v. UOI & Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vi'. Union of India & Am. JUDGE JANUARY 06,2012 pkb IHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Kiservedon: Novembej^lR^20U Eimpjm-edon:_Jcmuqiy])^23j^ (GRJD-A) LA.APP.1195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBJRSHARMA trough. Mr.B.^.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.JitinTewathia,Advocates Mr.AnandYadavand Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocates, Mr.RohTas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodara,Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.Azamy\nsari Advocates. Mr.PankaJVivek,Advocate Mr Rajesh yadav,,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhosia and Mr.Dhan.aiijayMehlawat,Advocates Mr.H.S.Rauieia, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya,-Advocate' Mr.Sandeepihakhur. Advocate Mr.AtulTripathi.,Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand MrJT.S.Rautela,(rVdvocaiesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOl) versus •NION 01' INDIA & ANR. -Respondents Ihrough; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak,Mr.Mohitrac.Jadhavand Ms^NavlinSwain-Ms,K.KaumiidiKiran.Advocatesfor L/vC/UOI Mr.AjayVerir.a,Ms.BeenashawSoni. Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr S.K,Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur.Mr.Kunal ShanriH,Advocate for [)1)A ],\APi>,76!i/200»; l,A.APP,77()/2008; IA.A-p. ri<J.v';:OO.S&.conn«ctBdAppealscifVilhiBt;Bharth;,! .' .AiJO. (Mo. /JC/AjiOS, connortedAppc.-jlsof Village-Biiw;r,jn A.App, \i,,. Tl .OoiO&connrae.:!Appealsof VhlaRcr-ochanptir PaBo I oi 2'3 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Obiections); 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.777/2008; 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.No.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 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Olyections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1032/2008 &. CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1046/2008 l.A.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.APP.1057/2008& CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/200S & CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections) LA.,APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008& CM.No.546/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.-623/2009(Cross-Objections)

1.,.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & 'CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Obiections) 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.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections);..LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; T.A.APP.1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.1112/2008 & C^M.No.3831/2009 (CrosSrObjections); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008 LA.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objections) .l.A.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Obiections) LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135./200S& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.l137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.l140/2008 LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008: L.A.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008 LA..APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/200.9(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1.168/2008 LA.APP.l170/2008; LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.li72/2008;LA.APP.l173/2008 LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; LA.APP.1179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008 LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.1183/2008& CM.No.6933./2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.II84/2008;LA.APP.l185/2008; LA.APP.l186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 I.A.App, No 3195/2008& connoctGdAppeaLsof VillageBharlhal I.A ApD. No. Z9'i/?-0.10& connfictedAppealsofVillagetSljwasan LA.App. No. .LU/.'.niO&connnctGciAppeal.sofVillagePochanour'' ' Page?.of29 y (j (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008;LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP.l198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008, LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP.1223/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009CCross-Objections);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^/7/2008;LA.APP.1279/2008 l.A.APP.1280/2008;LA.APRjm^OO^LA.283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; (TX7^33/200S^U:r?(.APP.37/2Q09; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; l.A.APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.yVPP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; T.A.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.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. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; 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; LA.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP. 13 9/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 L A. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.AiPP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 ,LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.l 176/2008 I.A.APP.1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(.30)/96/L&B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of-the I..and AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal,-Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December

¶082011 J-'ronounced on: January 06. 2012 .A.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BfJWASAN). D];:V1^NDER KUMAR ...... Appellant Through: .Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh • 1A.App. i\jo' 119:j/;.008& conncctoclAppealsof VillageBharlha! ' A.App. No. 294/2010& connocVndAppcal.sofVillageBijwasari I.A.App No. Ml/ZOiO& connoctc;dAppealsof VillagePochanpu.' versus Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki' and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) UOI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.SaniayPoddar, SeniorAdvocatewith Mi.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and iMs.NavlinSwain, Advocates for UOl/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals • filed by UOI. Mr.VirendraSingh,Advocatein R-68,71 & 72 in appealfiled by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP, U/2010 l.A.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP.282/2010 LA.APP, 283/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288,/20],0

1..A.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 l-A.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 l.A.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 l.A.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP-. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 l.A.APP, 759/2010 • LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP, 286/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 -LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP.'75/2010&• C.M.No.964/2011(Ci LA.APP, 49/2010 LA.APP. 5L'2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP.223/2010' LA.APP.226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/20.10 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP, 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP, 357/2010 LA,APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.y\PP, 407/2010 LA,APP. 408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. 722,/2010 l.A.APP, 725,/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731,/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & •oss-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13:12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND i.A App, .No .1195/2008& connecvndAppealsofVillage BharthnI lA.App. IMo. & connectedAppealsofVillageBij'A'asan !y\..App.i\io. •J1V2010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpuT Pape4of29" % (GRID-C) Reserved on: Dprember 7011 Prmouncedon: January06^ 7011 J'A.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJRAMAND ORS. Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-6, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33,36 to 40, 44 to49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S B. Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61,64,65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellajit inR-22) Through: versus UNION OF INDIA& ANR Through: ^ Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain.Advocates .for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA: LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. J^A.APP, la A]>P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476,/2011 523/2011 536/201]' LA.APP. LA.APP, • LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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 396/2'010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 W.Apo No ?94/2010 conncctodAppealsofVillageBharthal

1.A.APP 1 0of VillageBIjwasan PP 111/M10& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011

5.26/2011-591/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. t-A.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APP. L/V.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 LA.APP. 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. Page 5 of 29 . (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: 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, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating ' to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof IDwarkaPhase-IV in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of LS"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land A,cquisitionAct. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., y\ward No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@?13.82 lacs per acre for ISlock 'A' (level field -- with top soil) and @?I2.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired lAApp. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal ' •A.App. No. ?.9'i/?.010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IVX.App.No. 111/201.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePoch;>npiir agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt 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, referencesrelating to VillagePochanpurhave been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees » Mfty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer^ Karnataka HousingBoard vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246; AnjaniMoluDessai State of Goa and Anr.,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 See 661•RanvirSingh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs V5. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB)-,- Udho Dass vs'. State of Haryana ' Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCALl-362; Avinash DhavdjiNaik vs. State of Maharashtra,(2009) 11 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, lA.App, No. .llf?!)/?008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A.App, No. 7.I3'1/?.010&• connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan •A.App. No 1.]1/20.10S connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • Pa{5e7of29 Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC MS, RisalSingh & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLl 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Oni Prakash(dead) by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled a.s Sushil Kum.ar vs= Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram. 'vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010 (.170)DLT371.

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

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,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 iGl Airport,New Delhi lA.App. No. 11;}.s/20C8&connextcdAppealsofVillageBharihal lA.App. No. 291/2010&connoctfidAppealsof VillageUijwasan . IA.App. IMo. n:l/20.],0&connectedAppealsof VillagoPochanpur ' P-8-.f and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarkaSub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where^IGIAirport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarin Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension o( IGI Anport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 Ibr developmentofDwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks ^/zra^/mapto highlightthat'theboundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur• and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in thie light ofits location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite,of Notificationof 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 entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24^'^ October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama IA./\pp. No. l.iy5/;'.008&connoctedAppealsofVillageBharthal !.A App"No.291/2010&connectfic;Appealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App.,No,1,11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur off.ce, Or, (,995) 2sec 305. which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later ocsion in Mo Dass vs. StateofHaryana&On., 2010(9)SCALE 0 ing t at the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged eep."gin view the developmentin the area overaperiodoftitneL aec,u,.,.t.on.ifthe authoritiesdo not put the landto any use. it wouldnot meanthatthereis no buildingpotentiality. •

¶10Reliancewas placed by MnB.D.Sharma,learnedcounsel for the , sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlit throw "r"T be OU as has been .llegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because ----overvalued a.se of any spcc.al advantagesand as per settled legal proposition '- own h, the Apex Coun in ::lt''"O^I^""IO-h---Of saleexemplarsoughftot aken represent.ngthe marketpriceofthe land which comesto ?57 ... aes pe, acre and smce the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants-R r-.., i-eliance placed by the 0utneeCouitupontheininimumrates,/circleratesfor detenniningthe maiketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous n. Assessmentoftnarketvalue of the acquiredland was sought bv DO ratesT H"'^ "fthe P.O. in the year2000-200 K ^ potentialityof the ac d' ^ "L of its market value is LA.App. No. 294/70.10&connrrlPri pur sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or. on the basis of the Pre-Dctcrmined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) ''Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Aw^ard No.26/2002-2003 dated 2i.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates,of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid , dmm by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar.2010(3)see 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deed,showinghigherrate should,not be disregardedin lA.App, No. 1.19'i/2008&connectcGAppealsofVillagelihnrthal lA.App. No. 794/2010&connfictfidAppealsofVlllagoliijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averagingof different types of sales transactions should he considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupona certanland. ,f) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis much higherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockAand ^13,36.000in BlockB in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court includingmSubh Ram v,y. State of Haiyana 2010(1) see 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment •refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No 1 framed on 27.2.2007. • g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal'was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof.Delhi State. The^masterplanand Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential commercial _and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinentto mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74^''amendment oj the Constitutionof India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by viitue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor . was electedfrom there. No Panchayatelections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme (.ourt 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin t/ie area has a directeffecton the price that a willing P^'^'-haserwoiildpayfor thesubjectland Ignored, the fact that Respondent No. .2 'had also

i) A.APP. No. ll!):,/2008&connoctedAppeal.,of VillageBharthal •A. App, No. 2M/X010&connectedAppealsof VillageBllwa.san W.App.^0. .U,,/20in&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchangeof the use of the land althoughthe land was acquiredfor development purposes of i:)\varka Phase II. It 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) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthe said land InSangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was held,that thepurposefor M'hich land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact' whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in nearfuture needs to be considered. m) The presence of a num.ber 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 acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportionoj the land,is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining la?ids have the potentialof beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsofthis appeal be treated at par with the co-appelJantsofthe otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethatthe effectof !A.App.No. .U95/?.008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasan 1A.App. IMO. Tn/2010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • p 17 f rage i.o OT Zy urbanizationofAe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehm (MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Am-, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DetorminedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area are relevantto determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the, sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancemern of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is soughtin theseappeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar.learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas perSection51-Aof W AcquisitionAct. 1894, acertified copyof the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevanfevidence tor determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connectedwith the land in question and element of special fancy ofthe purchaserand other factorsnamely,nature,sit-uationofthe property,proxurntyto the villageetc. are also required(o be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the'Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsinJaiLai W. Union ofIndia. 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpai& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2015,it was urged that sharp increase in price in ashortperiodcannotbe taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor such shai-p increaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.App No. n9.V2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal -A.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppeal.9ofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2.010&connectedAppealsofVillaBePochanpur ' " • • and the purchaseras no prudentperson havingknowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin themarketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the.saleinstanceofRadha S.amiSatsang. Beas. relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DetermtnedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decisionof Ape. Court in La, Chana (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin Suski/Kumar(supra)a".RajSlngk . _ 16. r-- potentiallyof the land is concerned,it was urged by ..SanjayPoddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the mmtmumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon@12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been e^oneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakingintoconsiderationtheappreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line whilegranting appreciation @,0% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-Objectionsto the aforesaidextent. •

¶17After consideringthe rival submissionsadvanced by both the sidesand upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordandthe decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthetruemarketvalue ofthe comparablelandis the pricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling ' 'A.APP .o n 20,0a r . pp. NO, 11,1/2010a connected-Appealsof VillagePochanpur seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words

(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cityor the town or village which had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

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

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

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

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

¶181he potentialityoflandfor the puipose.ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpuiposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. ?.y4/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur. which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to sOme extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash(supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevantfactors for detemiination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the.exemplarsof small piecesof land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwerenot available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer<&. Am vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC

¶714Ihe legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalfof the appellantsis that where there is no basic difference either mlocation, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situatedhaving similar advantage availableto them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquiredland.

¶20It is a well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of pioving the true marketvalue ofthe acquiredland is on the State who ^ has acquired the' agriculturalland for aparticularpurpose. But, it is equally true tliat the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant,for this proposition,the decision of the Ape.KCourtmKiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto withadvantage.

¶21ApexCourt in Valliyammal(Supra),whiletaldngnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of-residential ' colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards developmentcharges was improper. Tlie pertinent' observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserveattention,whichare as under:- • • • • • l^App, No. 294/2010&connectod-Appeaisof VillageBijwasan '-A.App.No. 11.1/^01.0&connsctodAppealsofVillagePochanpur i The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highestofthe exemplars,which is a honafide transaction, will be considered. Where howeverthere are severalsales ofsimilarlaridswhosepricesrange in a narrowbandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the marketprice. But where the values disclosedin respectof two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are with referenceto dissimilarlandsor that the lower value sale is on accountofunder-valuation or otherprice depressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted toj' It would be worthwhileto take note ofthe clinehingobservations pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as . foliows:- 'It is well settled that' genuine and bona fide sale transactionsin respectof the land under acquisitionor in its absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place.betw>een a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreedbetween reasonableprudentpersons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to I determinethe marketvalue." 2j. Principlesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four . factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityoj landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. lA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppRalsofVillageBharthal i-A.App No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lAApp. No. 111/2'Oiaa connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 18 f29 zl On the otherhand, in urbanorsemi-urbanareas, where the developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreperyear, duringthe nineties. On the otherextreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance'of. any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated foryears or rose marginallyata nominalrate of1% 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-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum, the correspondingincreasesin ruralareas wouldat best be onlyaroundhalfofit,, that is about5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices: then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe marketvalue by providingappropriateescalationover the pi'Ovedmarket value oj nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),y^here there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonablysafe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by onlyafew years, that is uptofour tofiv.eyears. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even ifit relates to a. neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and.unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992,. adopting the ' annual-increase method with reference to a sale or l.A.App.'Mo.1195/2008 connsciedAppealsofVillageBh'artha! . '..A.Apo.No. 2'M/2010&connnctGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App No. 11.1/3.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanp'ii- " • • d <• r3g6 19 Or 29 acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls.This is because, over the course ofyears, the >ate' of annual increasetnay itselfundergodrasticchange apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard •oj increase.

¶24Ihis CourtIS mmdfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Haryana StateIndmtrialDevelopmentCorporation (Supra),regarding coniputation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods-.Whatwas said by the ApexCotirtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- I "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands(or landswithdifferent situatwnaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose. • forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoided andauniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor ail landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25tJndisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars,in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitatysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur. i.e.. the seven Sale Deedsvide which religiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at aprice which variedfrom?52 lacsto ?62 lacsperacre. -6. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds(Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which arc basicallybetweenone set ofco-ownersand RadhaSwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof Ihc landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required be an.sweied. tvidently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds l^Annr'nwl A.Apo. No. n.1/2030&connnctndAppwlsof VillagePocha.npur r- (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to 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,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeofthe aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh 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. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh kv. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh ra. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village MamurjDurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters,though the land use of the acquired lands • was changedmuchpriorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing lAApp. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealkof VillageBharthal' ' ' b'..App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 (lix.PW-1/4 to Bx.PW-1/10) 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 appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantprice 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 Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.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 fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly' situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acqiaredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a M'elldevelopedlayoutin the neighborhood lA.App. No. :liy;j/2008& connoctedAppealsofvillageBharthal I.A.App. Nc. 294/::o.1.0& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan I.A.App. Nn, 111/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pggg 22 of 29 orM'hetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin 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 theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the^ acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvaluefor such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land, indicatingthat there was no iinmediate 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 transfeiTingperpetual leasehold rights,,the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chand (Supra), a coordinateBench ofthis Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No. 11.'J:)/2008& conncctod Appealsof VillageBharthal l.A.App. No. 23i\/20U)& conncclodAppeal,';ofVillageI5ijwa.san LA.App. No. 11.1/20.1.0a connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 23 of29 the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question. j2. Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue ofthe land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the yeai 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is talcen from the yeai 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of ^ the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland'only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyond that 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 instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. .119i)/2008& connoctedAppealsofVillageBharthal i-A.App. No. 294/7.010& connoctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 1.11/201C&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur § escalationovertliemarlcetvalueofthe nearbylandofthepreviousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @12% per annum, which is unwatranted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SushUKumar (Supra),has granted escalation@10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra),Ifind that 10% increaseon accountof higher potentialityof the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushi!Kumar (Supra)escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @12% per annumcannotbe reducedto 10% perannum.In thisviewof the matter,the cross-objectionsoftherespondentare dismissed.

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

¶36Adoption of Govermnent'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to tlie Notiftcation in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to ' be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24'" October 1994 declaring agriculturallands mthese three v.llages in question'tobe urban.It is tniethatvideaforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not .sufficientto lA.App. No. connectedAppealsof VillageBharthiii ' ' ' •A App. No. ^!)4/2010&, connectedAppealsofVillageBiiwa.san l-A.App.No. ] ;.O.iO&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rathei, 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 increasein pricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturafland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what IA.App. No. 1105/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' . lA.App. Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppeal?ofVillage Bljwasan I.A.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ^6 f29 ZL would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalprice has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands inJai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushilKumar (Supra)and I fmd 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 Singh (Supra) and Sushil 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'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question, landingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquired lands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passingthrough Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Fami Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof aloresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof DwarkaPhase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over arid above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the I.A App. No. U9.'j/2008& connected AppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No.-1.1.1/2010&connectedAppesLsof VillagePochanpur settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buddingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion •wou d be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentiahtyand proceedto determine its market value takinginto account the increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fait that it would be veiy difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parte,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan.However, while relying upon the decisionin Smhil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto gram 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby theReferenceCourtin these matters on account of tlie aforesaid locational -advantages piovidingahigherbuildingpotennalityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are paitly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthaland Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof ' ^"""^'-u!a"ppeaisof VillageBijw/a.san ^pp. No. .1.1.,1/?.0,1G&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanour ' ' ' . .App No. .I..1J.V2008&connocledAppealsofVillageBharthal A.App. No. ;^94,.'0.10a connecledAppealsofVillageBijw/a.san IA.App. No. .1.1.,1/?.0,1G&conncictcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur % i \ the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed' to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^jJ^rthe Category A' land and @^14,69,600/-per for the Category lands in question.

¶41On the aloresaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are •granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi which periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid tenns with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar General of this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb C.-. ^ (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Pol lA.App. No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. IMo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates ' Ms.Anita Tomar, 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. ^ Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor ^ respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, ^ ' Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). this is an applicationfor .sedcingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'^ Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 of the application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'^ January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'perbigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it Is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/20,08be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe carriedoutforthwitll. In viewofthe aforesaid,thisapplicationstandsdisposedof lAApp.No.1195/2008 Page 2 »UNIL GAUR) JANUARY 12,2012 pkb

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ' Reservedon: NovemberK^f^2011 Pronounced on: January 06; 2012 + LA.APP. 33/2009 AJIT SINGH DECEASED THR. LRS & ORS Appellants Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhoslaand 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.Mulcesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR