Kartar Singh & Ors v. UOI & Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma v.v. Union of India & Anr. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI A.T MEW DELHI (GRJD-A) MsM:YMo.IlLJ^ov(imber IS, 201 / Pronounced on: January (9^ 2012 LA.APf-M195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBJR SHARlvlA Appellfint Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yada^'and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.RohTas, Advocate. Mr.Raghnvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Koutray,Mr.M.Azam /\]isari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav.Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhosla and M^rJ'JhananjayMehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.1.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atiii.Tripathi, AdvocaLe, Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Raiilela,(^Advocatesfor respondent in app(.'aLsfiled by IJOI) versus ljNI0N ()1MNDIA& ANR. Respondents ihrough; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAd^•ocate wifb iN/(r Sanjay Pathak.,Mr.Molutrao.,Tadha\-and Mr,.NavlinSwain. Ms.K.Kaumiidi Kiran, Advocates for L/\C/lJOI Mr.AJay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Sorii. Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr S.K.Sethi,Mj-.PawunJ'viathiir,iVlr.Kuna) ShanriH. Ad^'oc;ue for DDA !.A..APP.4i2,'2008& CM.No,4096/2U0S (Cross-Oryections).fAAPP 4-S'^A''008-LA.APP.4?i3/2008;LA.AP!'.688/200?& C:\4.Mo.5990/2U]0(Cross-Objeclions);' i-A.Al'P.(>97/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objectio.ns);,I.A.APP.701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-OWections): LV.APF 768^2008; [.A.APP.770/2008; IA.Anp. iiy;3/.?008&cornoctedAppnalsofVillag,;Bhari.h:il iA".\Dp. No. ;>94/?0:j,C' cormeriedAppc.-jl.sofVillageSiiwaian IA.App. iv,j. &'connrcu:dApp.-a!sof ViilaRC;l-ochanpiir ! oi 23 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No,425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP|.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775,/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; 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.il795/2009 (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-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (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.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.1048/2008cfe 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.l 052/2008 LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.11766/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM..No.1557/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0bjections); . LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); ' LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); lA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093./2008; A.APP.l 094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA:APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.110,9/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008 & CM.No,3828/2009(Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.11 n/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objection,s); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 1.15/20()8; LA.APP. 1116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; f.A.APP.l 126/2008; LA.APP.II29/2008 & • CM.No.5'50/2009 (Cross-Objectjons); LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No..566/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.l133/2008; LA.APP.1135/2008& 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-()bjections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.1172/2008; LA.APP.1173/2008; LA.APP,1175/2008; LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.l179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP,!182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6.933/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.]184/2008; LA.APP.1185/2008; LA.APP.118.6/2008& CM.No.7013,/2009 I.^.App.No. Jl95/?.008& conncctedAppeal.';ofVillageBharthal l.A App. No. 291/20.10& corinectedAppealsofVillageBljv/asan l.A.App.No, :l1.1/.2010&connecleciAppeal.sof VillagePocnaiiDur' ' Page2ol'29 k (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP.1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-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.1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); T.A APP S9/9nnQ & CM,No.7103/2009 (Cross-Ob]ections)(f^.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 Te?^Objections) LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP. 108/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009 LA.APP. 140/2009 LA.APP. 162/2009 LA.APP: 197/2009 LA.APP.202/2009 (Cross-Obj ections) LA.APP.2] 1/2009 LA.APP.224/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.249/2009 I.A.APP.367/2009 LA.APP,.459/2009 LA.APP.489/2009 LA.APP.494/2009 LA.APP.507/2009 LA.APP,511/2009 LA.APP'.572/2009 LA.APP.404/2010 LA.APP. 137/2009 LA.APP. 143/2009 LA.APP. 187/2009 LA.APP. 198/2009 LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/20] LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA. APP.43 7/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2{)09; 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; :.A.APP. 1138/2008;

1./\.APP.1]77/2008;LA.APP.1201/2008;LA.APP.23 1/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA. APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.223/2009 CM.No.7206/2009 LA,APP.246/2009 LA.APP.3 05/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA,APP.567/2009 LA.APP,48/2010 LA.APP.l 176/2008 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December OH. 201! , Pronounced on: January 06. 20J2 .A.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). DliVENDERKUMAR ......Appellant Ihrough: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. No 1195/.'.008&connectedAppealsofVillago Bharthal i-A.App. No. 294/?.010&connecUidAppRal,sofVillage Bijwasan LA.App No. l.ll/?,010&' connecl(!dAppealsofVillagePochanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (m R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR LA.APPl [A.APPi LA.APP: LA.APPl la.app! LA.APP' LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP! LA.APPi LA.APP! LA.APPl LA.APP. LA.APPl LA.APPi LA.APPl la.app: LA.APP: LA.APP.i 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray,, Advocates in appeals filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, '71 & 72 in appealfiled by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar^Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. U/2010 53/2010 57/2010 221/2010 246/2010 283/2010 288/2010 296/2010 347/2010 351/2010 356/2010 742/2010 361/2010 406/2010 438/2010 724/2010 729/2010 759/2010 286/2010 80/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 49/2010

5.4/2010 59/2010 223/2010' 277/2010 284/2010 289/2010 313/2010 348/2010 352/2010 357/2010 760/2010 362/2010 407/2010 •588/2010 725/2010 731/2010 764/2010 364/2010 99/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722,/2010 726/2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417 dated-13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,Village Bijwasan,Delhi) AND • • .iA.App..No. 119.'j/.2008& connGctedAppealsof VillagG Bharthal l-A,App. No. 294//OlO&' connRrtGdAppp.alsqfViliageBijwasan lA.Afip.No. 111/2010,&|conneclodAppealsofVillagePochanpur . Pagt! 1 of 29 (3 i % f (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 20)1 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 n. A.APP;. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. ; Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49,59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,A,dvocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant hi R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SonierK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. LA. AFP LA.APP LA.APP, J.A.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.Al'P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, I.A,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 5^3/2011 536/2011' 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. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 .248/2010 .260/2010 . 293/2010 .317/2010 , 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 . 155/2010 .209/2010 . 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 78:4/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP LA,APP LA.APP LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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. l-A.App.lyo, U95/2008&conncctedAppealsofVillageBharthal A.-^pp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVlllagG BIjwasan 1-A.App No 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur i (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2Q00issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL €;AUR ORDER

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, thcieioiewith the consentof learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Q-NolificaUonNoJ-.I0(30)96-L&B/LA/I34ndated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, ]?ijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the-issuance of Notificaiion of 13 December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. Ijjj^ j. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e.. Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@?^13.82 lacs per acre for ]31ock 'A' (level field -- with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B;(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired LA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppeals.ofVillaReBharthal LA.App. Mo, 29'1./7.010&connnctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.Mo. 111/20.10&connpctedAppeal.sof VillaRCPochsnpur :lll /M agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ? 15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, refcrences 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 Pochanpur have sought comperisation at the rate of Rupees Thiity lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai ra. State ofGoa and Ann,

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

(2010)11 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SeC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, ra. Union of India AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased)through LRs vs. Union ofIndia Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas fs. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCALfi 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik'vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors ra. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SC-C 568; W.P.(C) No, 4143/2003' titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha sS Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 see,714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs'. ExecutiveEngineer,, LA.App. No. .115:)/;?008S( connnctpdAppealsofVillageSharthai ;.A.App. No. 7.94/?.010&• conn(!ct(!dAppcaLsofVillage Bijwasan iA.App. No in/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page7of29 /C Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 115-RisalSingh& Ors. Vs., UnionofIndia& Anr" 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChmdvs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,.{2m) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd w. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC-2937; Kiran Tandon vs, Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar V5. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(201,1)DLI 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh w. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1-997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKimtar vs. Union ofIndia, 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. UnionofIndia, 2010

(170)DLT371. b. On the strengthofthe aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counscl 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 future 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 railwaylineis the IGI Airport,New Delhi l-A.App.No. 1135/2003&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 2tM/2010&connectcdAppealsof VillageiJijwasan 1A.APP. No. in/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 8 of 7.9 i and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Par^-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions;!(i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Fann 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 of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport 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 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the westernside of VillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention'was drawnto the alessizraslm^ito highlightthat the boundary bl 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 the light of its 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 agricultura! 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 vs'rongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama. lA.App. No. 119i3/M08&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l.A,App..No,.794/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan . LA.App, No, .111/iOlO&connectedAppnal.sof VillaEoPochanpur Pago 9 of 29 ReM,&On. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Doss ra. StaleofHaryana&Ors., 2010(9)SeALE 41 holding that the potentialof the acquired land must be adjudged keepingin view the developmentin the ai-ea overaperiod of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after llie acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthei'cis no buildingpotentiality.

¶10R'elianccwas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharina,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom f52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued becauseof any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjamMoluDessai vs. Stateof Goa andAnr:,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exempla.-soughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplai-srelied upon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/cirelerates for detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was souglit by Mr.R.(Jodara,learnedcounsel for the appellantson tire basisofthe L& •DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates i«ed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate plots the year 2000-2001.Keepmgin,view the location,situationand potent,ahtyof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is -A.APP IMo.llj,.niO&connmedAppoalsofVillagcPochanpur A 1/ f sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalldiaor alternativelyon the basis ofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DetermiitedRates (PDRs)as referredto 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 Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.]0.2002 being flaM^ed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) b) poes 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. down by variousdecisionsincludingin one of the more i-ecent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar.2010(3)SCC66J. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining ^ 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' Deedshowinghigher rate shouldnot he disregardedin li\.App.IMo. .1.195/2008&coiineci.edAppaalsof Villageliharthal l-A.App, No. 2!M/20.10&connectedApppalsofVillagG liijwasan LA.App. No. ,1.11/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur p i f case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the, highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v.?. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and. these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for land use change show that in future land, can be subjected, to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 7f'' amendment of the Constitution of India, wKe.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was am.ended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municipalarea and the municjpal Counsellor was elected from there. No Panchayat elections were held in. the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir.Singh and Anr vs. Union of India and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpay for, the subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No.- 2 had also I.A.App, No. 1195/2008 & connccted Appealsof VillageBharthal LA.App, Nrj. 294/7.010& connccledAppealsofVillage Biiwa.san LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur . t » auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concludedthat,the said landis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even loyver than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 •for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthe possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land although the land, was acquiredfor development purposes of D-vvarka Phase

¶11It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated ]6.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthe said land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(2010) 3sea 661 itwas held,thatthepurposefor 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 near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number oj buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portionofthe land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingputin betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

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

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe .appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof !.A.App. Mo. .1195/2008&conncictedAppealsof VillageBharthal I.A.App, No. 294/2010&conhecledAppealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ^ i urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MakeshDattatmyThlrihkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Dctermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determhie the market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ot the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals. ^Arguing the cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof l.cmd AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence [or 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 purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpai & Ors vs. Union of I India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand. w. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase ^ in piice in ashort periodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/Z008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 29/;/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. ail/?.010&connectedAppealsof VillagGPochanpur ^9 and the puichasei as no prudentperson havingIcnowledgeof the usual prevalenttrend in the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf ;of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DetcrmpiedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis Courtin Sushil,Kumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra).:

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mi.Sanjay Poddai, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on ] April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously delermiiicd by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor flirtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ^ ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves Lo be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. • •

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by botli tiie sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis that the truemarlcetvalue ofdie comparablelandis the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling I.A,App. No. 1.19:,/2008&conncctGdAppealsof VillageBharthal -A.App,No, 294/^010&connectedAppealsof VillageUijwa.san l-A.App. No. 1.1.1/;,010&connected-Appealsof VillagePochanpur Page 15 of Z9 i » vScller 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 of Easyana Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation;

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

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingM>ater and electricsupplyfor occupants of buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acqidredlandfor buildingpurpose;

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

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiersof buildings,if built on. the ^ acqidredland;and

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

¶18ihe potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large number of factors. For the said puiposc, the Court may not only have to, bear in mind the purpose for 1A.App. No. 1195/2008& connecledAppealiofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 2.'M/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. IMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Papel6of29 py\ I * 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). While reiteratingthe relevant factors for determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex'Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the.exemplarsof small pieces of land relied , ) upon by the appellantscould not be a ground to discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special Land AcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behali of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. 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 Coiirtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto Vvith advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal(Supra),while takingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under;- lA.App. No. ai.95/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal 1-A.App. No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l..A.App. No. 11.1/201,0&connectedAppealsofVillageI'ochanpur I \ V "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, M>ill be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands yvhoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the-average thereof can be taken, as. representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of twq sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an •inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. " 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 Chindha Fakim Patil (Supra), which are as follows;- "// is well settled that' genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land, under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated;by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for developm.entin the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices' would be slow, steady and gradual, withoutany sudden spurts orjvmn.ps: LA.App, IMo. 1195/2008& connactedAppRalsofVillageBharllial i.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connncted Appeals of VillaBP Bijwa.?an W.App. No. 1]1/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page18of 29 On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more 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 lYo 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 urhan/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%)per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value byproviding appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonablysafe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition _ . by only a few years, that is upto four tofiveyears. Beyond that itmay be unsafe, even if it relates to a., neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a. feyv years, may become unsafe and. unreliable standard, where the gap is larger. Tor example,for detenniningthe m.arket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the. annual increase method with reference to a sale or lA.App. No, 119;j/200a& connncledAppealsofVillagR Bhartha! . ;.A.App,No. 294/2010& connpcledAppealsofVillage Bijwa.san LA.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpar ' Pago 19 of 2") A f m acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom, the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurts inpricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase. "

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthq Apex Courtin Hmyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC) (Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods:What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands yvith different sifuationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference toprevious status or situation should be avoided and a uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all lands acquiredimderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur. i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwamiSatsangBeas had puichased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/l0) which are basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landmthe villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds I.A App. Mo. 1195/2008&coniiectndAppealsof VillageBharthal I.A,App.Mo. 2S/I/2010&, conricctGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App.lMo.lll/20]0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur I (bx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to f62 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.Itwas dependentupon the nature and situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbetreatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special; need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been 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 Swarni 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 vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.20,11 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. ^7, In 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 l-A.App. Mo. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bhartfial LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoclianpur yf\ • / I f * 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 (.P^x.PW-1/4 to Iix.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 appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^'l,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 (lix.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 representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situated lands in-the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-Dctermined Rates for the alternate plots 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, R Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., ]995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "I'2. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood IA.App, Mo. .1.195/2008& connected.AppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App.'No,294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur f % orwhetherithe the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland, with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliminarynotification under Section '^(V ^he Act. Further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by\the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbidldingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what coidd be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired,land with reference to the relevant date of pidilicationunderSection 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 buildingpotentia:iitya.scerta.inedon 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 land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales of build.ingplots in the neighborhoodof the accjuiredland, indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even if formed in the acquired land. "

¶31In View of the .difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supia),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment 1atcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of lA.App, No.,l.m/2008&connoclcdAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. |\)C). 291/2010&connnclodAppealsof VlllagB Rijwasan LA.App. No. mPm.Q&connectedAppeal.^ofVillagePochanpur ,/ f the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court 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 market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwaika Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the ycai 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 price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. j3. Aioresaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofa few years,ma}' becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Ihase-Ifisof sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate IV\.App. No. n9V2008&connpcledAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan l-A.App, No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ f escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearb)'^land ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the lespondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a cooidinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Smhil Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acqyired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon SushifKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @12%) per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%o per annum.In this view of the mattei,the cross-objectionsoithe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice ofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the RefeienceCourt from the date of fixationol the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned;counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be Liiban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ol the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto lAApp. |\Jo. l].9,';/;?dG8&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ' ' Page 25 of 2!) LA.App. No. 294/2010&, connnclndAppealsof Village'Bijwasan l-A.App.No. 1.1.1/2010&'connectedAppealsof VillageI'ochanpu ; / V / presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere bemg any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satmng,,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethattlie sale oftlie said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasemprice due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquiied lands upon change of their use post, tlie year 1994, tlien m appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, mdeed appellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)witliout leading any evidence to ' establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satmng. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalklia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Hx. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to: grant higlier compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale mstances. Therefore, in view of the afore-refeiTeddictum of flie Apex Coqrt in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation

(Hsmc)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for tlic lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what (A.App.No, 111/20.10&connectfidAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pass 26 of 2.9 would be cxpected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as in Siishil Kumar (Supra)andI 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) landSushil 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 Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquired lands in question. * landingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidencethat the potential and the situation oi the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButI fmd that the aspectof higherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport;Indian Oil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from Nli-8 Irom Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the 4^ ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigher buildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityof DwarkaPhase-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 buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the I.A,App. No. .1195/2008& connected Appealsof Village Bharthal l-A.App. No. 294/2010& corineciedAppealsofVillage Biivviasan LA.App.No.-111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur sctllecMegalposition aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possiMityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringtlie fact tliat it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is ^ broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem % with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum pnces ibr the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Smhil Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahiglierbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the RrfcrenceCourt in matterspertainingto VillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan.'Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof - App. No. .1,11/20,10&conncclodAppeal.,ofVillagePoc.^ianpur # r f the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove, llius, the market value of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per])i^Jfor the Category 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per bi^ha for the Category 'B'' lands in question. \-i^

¶41On the atoresaid 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,excepttor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the atoresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General oi this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb (SUNIL GAUR) ( CH'- ( (y"'i ' l.A.App. No. 119b/2008&connnclcdAppealsof VillageBharthal l.A.App. Klo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l,.A.App.No. 1.11/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePoclianpur r * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR:SHARMA Appellant Thi-ough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.,Negi and Mr.H.S.Raiitela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.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 f % versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mi-.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.BanlceyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shaima and 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 application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have, aceepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 / ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointedout by tlie respondentin the, decision of 6'" January. 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis "per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthattirereferenceto 'perbigha'in pai-agraph no: 40:ofLA.App.No: 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe,carriedoutforthwith. In vjewoi the aforesaid^this applicationstandsdisposedof. --^^-"(SUNILGAUR) JANUARY12, 2012 JUDGE plcb LA.Aj:Jp.No.1195/2008 Page 2

^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 74/2009 KARTAR SINGH & ORS Appellant Tlirough: 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.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 Tlirough: 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.PawanMathur,Mr.KunalSharma,Advocate ^ for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR