UOI v. Man Singh & Ors

ORDER %

06.0L2012 For orders see LA.App.No.1195/2008,tilled as 'RanbirSharma vs. Union of India & Anr. GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. i IN THE-HIGH COURT OF DELHI A1^ NEW DELHI Reserved on: November IS. 20J1 l^LQlloiuK'sdgn: .Jcnmgiy06^ 2012 (,GRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL • • RANBJRSHAimA : Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mu.JaiPrak^ish,Ms.Smi.ta Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin I'ewathia, Advocates Mr.AnandYadav and Ms.AnitaTomar, Advocates, Mr.RohTas,: Advocate. Mr.Raghnyinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Ne'giand Mr.H.S.Rauteia, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rouland Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates,: Mi-.PankajVivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.Deepakl<Lhosla,Mr.SamitKhosla and Mi-.DhananJayMehlawat, .Advocates Mr.H. S.Raiite 1a, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate • Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.SV.Negiand MrJI.S.Rauleia,(Advocates10.1-respondent..inappeals filed by IJOI) versus L'l^'JIONOl'INDIA& ANR. .R_espondents 1hroug]i: Mr.SanjayPoddav,SeniorA.d^•ocatew,ith Mr.Saaja)- Pathak, Mr:Moh.itrao,.Vadha\-arul Ms.Navlin Ms.K.Kaumiidi-Kiran.Advocatesfo.r LAC/lIOl Mr;Ajay Verma, .Ms..BecnashavvSoni. Mr.iVlukcsh Kumfir,Mr;S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pav/a i Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocaie for DDA • l-A.APP.4i2/2008& CM.No,4096/200^> (Gross-Objcclious),fA.APP..452/2008; LA..'\PP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& CA<[.No.5990/20]o' (Cross-Objeclions); i..A.Al'J'.()97/2008&' CM.No.433,/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP,701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-01:je,cti.o-a:;): .1, \. APP.768''-lOOR; !'...\.APP.77(V20n8;

1.App. I^ii). 1.iy;3/.''.00>;& conncctedAppnylsofVillagi;Bh:irl.li;,il : v.'Ndo. No. & tionnuci.edAppc;al.<;ol Villai^o15iiw;i!.jn IA.App. .l.Il./jrno&connociodAppcaisofVijlaRL-l-ochanpiir ' PaRc Ioi 79 /> 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/i2008; LA.APP.785/20()8; LA.APP,798/2008 & aVI.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 iCross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008;. LA.APP.820/2008; i.A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.83q/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008;. LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; L-A.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.993/2b08;LA.APP.1029/200S&CM.No.l7340/2008 (Cross-pbjections); LA.APP.1031'/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); l.A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.5;99/2009 (Cross-Objeciions); 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.l 052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009. (Cross-Objections); LA.AP?.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.l7: 59/2008(Cross-Objections); ].A.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); • ^ LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 10^4/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); i.A.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.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA:APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.ll 11/2008; LA.APP.1112/2008& CM;No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l11572008; LA.APP,1116/2008;LA.APP.l121/2008; lA.APP.ri26/2008;LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objections); l.,A.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM,No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP.l 13:5/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); l.A.APP. 1137/2008 & CxM.No.17283/2008 iCross-Objcctions); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.1157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM-.No.7774.'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008; LA.APP.l170/2008;LA.APP.l171/2008JLAvAPP4JJ2/2^^LA.APP.l 173/2008; LA.APP.1175/2008;LA.APP.1178/200^LA.APP.1179^20^LA.APP.1181/2008; : ' LyV.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.lL83/2008&~"~f3M:NDT69:)j^^(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.)184/2008; LA.APP.l185/2008; LA.APP.l186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 IA.App. No. n95/?008 & conncctcd Appeal.sof VillageBharthal l.A App. No. Z91/20.1.0& connected AppealsofVillageBijv/asan ' . LA,App. !>Jo. ;i.l.l/.inlO& connecteclAppealsofVillagePochaiiDur' ' Page 2ol 29 / (/ (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008; LA.APP.l 194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP.l 197/2008 LA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-ObjectiQns); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l'243/2008;LA.APP.1252/2008 I.A.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 128:1/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; • LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.7;l03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 l.A.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;

1.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-Objcctions); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 I.A.APP.211/2009; ' LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222 2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & (Cross-Objections); ,LA.APP.24l/2009; LA.APP.245'2009; LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009;- l.A.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.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA. APP.466/2009; LA.APP.49q/2009; LA.APP.495/2p09; LA.APP.508/2009; LA. APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 1V2010; LA.APP. 13/2011: LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 I.A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/'2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA. APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503.'2009; LA..APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513'2009; LA.APP.45/2010; i.A.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA. APP.201/2009 CiM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA. APP.3 05/2009 LA.APP.45 8/2009 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. 1176/2008 LA.APP.1177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 (Relating to Notification No. R10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the |Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002^VillageBharthal,-Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December

¶08201J Pronoiiiiced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BIJW ASAN). • , DEVENDER KUMAR . ; Appellant Through: | .Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh lA.App. iMo .1195/ZOOS& connected Appeals of Village IBharlhal t.A.App.No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBljwasah LA.App No. lli/ZOiO & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.SoIanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Roiitray, Advocates for appellant (m R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR

1.A.APP. r.A.APP. l.,A.APP. LA.APP. [.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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 Avith Mr.Sanjay Kumar?athak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for LIOI/LAC Mr.S.K.SoIanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, /Vdvocates in appeals filed by UOL ' Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, '71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI [vIr.Ba3:ikeyBihar Sharraa, 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 C.M.No. . U/2010 .53^2010 .57/2010 .. . 221/2010 . 24:6/2010 . 283/2010 . 288/2010 .296/2010 . 347/2010 351/2010 . 356/2010 . 742/2010. . 361/2010 .406/2010 . 43:8/2010 . 724/2010 . 729/2010 . 759/2010 .28:6/2010 . 80/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 28^)/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 7(0/2010 LA.APP. 3(2/2010 LA.y\PP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 .LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 objections) 964/2011 (Cross-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- (Relating to Notification No. 1>10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the ;Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, VillageBi}Avasan, Delhi) ' : AM) . • • • LA.App. No. .1.19.'j/-2008& conncctod Appeals of VillagR BharthnI I.A.App.No.29'!//010 & ctinnciclfidAppealsof ViiiageBijwasaii i7\.App. No. 113/2010. & connecU'd Appeals of.Village Pochahpur , l-ap,[! 4 of 29 % (GRID-C) •Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 I.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGE SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.SoIankiand ' 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,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61', 64. 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Na/lin Swain. Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010 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 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 105i'20]0 116/:2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. L/V.APP. LA..APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 2^9/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 57^/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61'2011 . 11 7/2011 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. L.^.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 53572011 I.A..App, Mo. 119;i/2008& conncctedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.Apo. IMo, 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ; 1-A.App No 111/2010& conncctfidAppealsofVillagePochanpur.! vi (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIJNIL GAUR ORDER %

06.01.2012

¶1,Since the giounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in. these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consent of:learned counsel for the partiespresent at the hearing ol' these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoiificaiionNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess foriplanneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Sectioin 4 oi the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894, peitaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block compiisingof thirteenRevenue Lstates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pobhanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of thd appellants herein in the afoi'csaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide ;hree separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-200^; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting coibpensation@?13.82 lacs per acre for Block A (level field —with top soil) and ?]2.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil). ! ' I I

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarket value oftheir acquired I.A,Apr. No. 1195/2008&connectGdAppeals.ofVillage Bharthal.; I.A.App. No. Z9'i/2010S connccledAppealsofVillageBijwasan ! iy\.App. No. 111/7.0.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur! g agriculturallands, appellants!had sought referersceunder Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned -judgment had enhanced compensation @ ^15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ^13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, farther enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of Rupees.Thirtylacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Kamataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors,, (2011) 2 see 246; Anjdni Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Ann,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Fs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition). & Ors., (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patii

(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) DIU 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of 'Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SeALli 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SeALH 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana& Anr, (2008) 2 ^ee 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003'titled as Smt, Indu Khorana v^. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; • SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsihhai Dfvjibhai and ors rv. Executive Engineer, LA.App. No.nS'.'j/^OOS& conncctcd Appeals of Village.Sharthcii LA.App. No. 7.94/2010&• connectKdAppealsof VlllaReBIjwasaii •A.App. No 1,31/20.1.0& conntictfidAppfialsofVillagePochanpur ' ' Page 7of29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2Q01 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial . DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175;EisalSingh& Ors. Vs. , Unionoflndia&Anr., 200^ (89)DPJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union ofIndia and Am., (2009) iS SCC 769; Genera!Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr',, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Battatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra..AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Meitra (Major General) & Ors. Fs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20]1) DLT 361; W.P.(C^ No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. ^ Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs w. Unionoflndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushH\Kiim.arvs. Union ofIndia, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titJed as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and EkuleRam ra. Unionoflndia,2010

(170) DLT 371. :

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing coujiselfor the appelkirits 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 linji.itedto the nearilitiirealone. / .

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway'line ofVillage Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBhaxthal,dividingit into two parls, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Deihi LA.App. No. 1195/2003&connectedAppealsof VillageBhariha! ' IA.App, No. 2yi/2010&connectcdAppealsof VillageBIjwasan • lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillafiePochanpur' ; .1 Page 8 of ?.9 nP and Oil Depots of Indian OiL and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-,8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Siib- ' City Part-I and Part-II again" divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) i South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalldia. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned; counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in. the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Vill^ageBharthal and Village Pochanpur were , also acquired in the year 1984; for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Ii., Dwarka Sub-City. Attention Avas drawn to the aks'^sizraslm'A'pto highlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous. :

¶8It was strenuously urged; by Mi-.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has. illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"^ October,;2000 vide which land use of the three I villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. andi infact the entire land of Village Bharthal ,had ceasedto be rural in view of the Notilica.tionol'24''"October, 1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by VIr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.App, No, iliJrj/I'.OOS& connectedAppoaLsofVillage Bharthal; !.A App"No. 291/2010 & conneclcd Appealsof VillaReBijwasan ;. !..A.App,[Jo. .1.11/>1010& connecVcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pai;e9of23 Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ora, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex eourt in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingin view the developmentin the area over aperiodoftime and the same cannot be limited^to anear future .lone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put tlie land lo any use, it wouldnot meanthatthereis no buildingpotentiahty.

¶10Reliancewas placed bji Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the •appellants upon the sevenSal| DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highliglit that tlTC sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?S2 lacs to ?62 lacs and < • ^ Xariation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegaljlydone by the Referenceeourt, because there is no basis to concludefhal these sale exemplarsare overvalued bccauseof any spccial advantages'andas per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex CourtmAnjaniMoluBessaivs. StateofGoa mdAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710,Ae averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be , taken as representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?5T lacs per acrc and since the sale!exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates./c.irclerates for deteniiiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. II. Assessmentof marketvalue of the acquired land was sought by Mi.R.(jodara,learnedcounsel fpr the appellantson the basis ofthe ].& DO rates fixed by the Government and also c:i the basis of pro-determinedrates fixed by the iGovernmentfor alotment of alternate plots in the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationo)'its market value is lAApp. NO. n95/200S& connectedAppealsOfVillaeoB I • • l-A.App No. a connmedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ; , ' Page 10o(29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpurand VillageSamaMiaor alternative|lyon the basisofthe L& DO ratesofthe developed lands in Dwarka ;Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DcterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above. '

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant Impulse IndiaPrivateLimited I . . ofLA. App. No. 295/2009has|assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds:- i I I . . ' . a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.J0.2002 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), i-i h) Does not accountfor^ the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987advei^selyaffectedthe rates,of land in the areafor more thai^ 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the. Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. ; .i' c) Valuing the land on, the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby tlte GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid , down by variousdecisionsincludingin oie ofthe more' recent decisions of 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTa'hsildar.2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence'and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining the valueofthe landliAder.acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trfal Courtwhereas as per the law establishedby theHon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fa.Jq.ra Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, clyil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Cour^t has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigher rpte shouldnot he disregardedin •I-A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageUharthal -i ' LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageUljwasan ' U\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ! p ^^ ^ i: -7^ case the average sale 'price is tower. 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 Idfid 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 vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the.' impugned judgment •rejused to return an '.actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. : g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification [of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land, use of Village ' Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came how under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and ]Notifcations 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 74"^ amendment of the'Constitution of InoJa. w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the \Mtmicipa.l Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was • • deemed a 'municipal area and the-municipal Counsellor was elected from there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. \ h) Refused to apply the\ law laid down in AIR Suprem.e Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr-vs. Union of India and refused to considerthe fact'that the developmentin the area has a direct',effect on the'price thai a willing purchaser wouldpay for. the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact thai Respondent 'Nc. ,2 had also l-A.App. No. 1195/7.008& connectedAppeal.sofVillaBG Bharthal 1 l.A.App. No. 291/7.010& connRcledAppealsofVillagG Bijwasan i . W.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur1 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concludedthat the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the Subjectland is even Imver than the pre-determinedauctidn rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into aqcountthe possibiWyofchange of the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purpose,s of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal yvas change,d and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. : I) Ignored Notificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial ' potentialityofthe saidland In Sangunthalav. Tahsiidar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 itwas heldthat thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevant factor. 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 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 a portion\oJ the land is being consideredas ^ house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingputin betteruse 'as housesitesin the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by;Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the tactual detailshaj'e been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsofthis appeal be treajted at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,itwas urged by Mr.AnaridYadav, Advocatethat the effectof LA.App. Mp, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ; W.App. Mo, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan ! iV\.App.No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsof Villagepochaopur ' " ' urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has. been consideredin Mahesh Daitatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors, Vs. Union of India ; Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value :of the acquired lands and infect the sale ; instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired landis. Thus, enhancement of compensation icflcctingjust, fair and adequatemarket,value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals. i I

¶15Arguingthe cross-objecitionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthough as per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894,\sl certified copy cf the Sale Deed is a.n admissioleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence k)i-determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the |land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand otl^ierfactors namely, nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplapingrelianceupon ihe decisionsin Jai La! vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 221, Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr,,

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. AP.P:. No.656/2008titled as Smhil Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 2^.09,201.1,it was urged that sharp increase in piice in a shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for SLicli sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App, No. 119.'3/Z008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthali l-A.App. No. 7.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan ' !.A.App.lMc.lll/?.Oj.O&connectedAppealsofVillaBGPochanpur I'ageiaofzg and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin the marketWouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin , the sale instance of Radha 'swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special cjonsideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objectqr that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre- . ^ DeterminedRates cannot be;countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand\ which has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis Courtin SiishilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra). ;

¶16So far as potentialityqf the'landis conccrned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for :he Respondents/cross- ' ^ objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factored into, while fixing the minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on r' Apri], 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor further.enhancementfrom the priceofacquired Jands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReierenceCourtwhiletakingijlto 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-objections to the aforesaid extent. •

¶17After considering the rjval submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon Icoord and the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparablelandis the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling I.A..App. No. 1195/;m08&conncctGdAppealsof VillageBharthal ' lAApp, Mo. ?MnQlQ&conneclodAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' iA.App. No. 1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur\ Page 15 of 29" seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealingwith the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what . has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands -. reiterated by the Apex Court |in Udho Dass vs. State of Haiyana & 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 importanceor because of its explosivepopulation;

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

(iii) possibility^ofobtainingwater cmd electricsupplyfor occupants ofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) ' absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose; I

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin thevicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiersof buildings,if builton the ' acquired land; and, I

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

¶181he potentialityofland fcir the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large number oJ^ factors. For the said I purpose,the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ITV.App. No. ?_fM/?.010& connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppoaLsofVillagePochanpur 1 ' 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 reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that thevexemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscould not be a ground to discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces ;ofland were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum standsireiteratedby the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.vs, MJL Rqfiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC I

¶714The legal propositionwhich emergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants is |that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or; potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as ; regards future prospects, therp is no justification for reducing the I compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquiredland. |

¶20It is a well established iproposition of lav/ that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particular purpose. But, it is • I • • equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the-claimant. Kor this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon(Slupra)can be referredto with a.dvantage,

¶21Apex Court in Valliyamn'ml(Supra),while takingnote of the 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 impi-oper. llie pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in Anjani Mohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as tindej-;- lA.App, K'o. 1.195/2008& cannccted AppealsofVillage?Bharthal 1 LA.App. No. 291/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ' LA.App. No. 111/2010&conncctcdAppealsof VillagePochanpur > "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars M'ith reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, \which is a bona fide transaction, will he considered. Where however there ari' several sales ofsimilar larids whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth', the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where 'the values disclosed in respect of tM'o sales are markedly [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.. " \ I

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determinationof fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court, in Chindha Fakira Pati! (Supra), which are as , follows:- : ''It 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 pldce betiveen a willing vendee and the willing vendor whicli could be expectec' to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable p'-udent 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:-; I "Primarily, the increase']in land p/ices denends on four factors - situation of th&. land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of.land for development in the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is an-^) prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices' would be slow, steady and gradual, without.anysudden spurts orjumps. IA,App. No. 3195/2008& connoctedAppp.aisofVillage Bharlhal I' ' IA.App. No.294/2010 & connGctedAppeals of VillageBIjwasan | LA,App. No. in/2'010 Si connectedAppealsofVillagePochar.pur j PagelSof29 5® On the other hand, in w\ban or semi-urban areas, where the developmentisfaster, inhere the demandjar 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 area!?. 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 extrem.e, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1%> or 2%) per annum. There is; thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban i areas and increases in Imarket, value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if tlfie increase • in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to -5% per annum, the corresponding increfises 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 dear 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 by providing appropriate escalation over the proved .market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), Vy'here there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where tl,e, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the suhject acquisition, by only a few years, that is uptofoiir tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, ieven if it relates to a., neighbouring, land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and imr d.ia.ble standard, where the gap is largei For example,for determiningthe market value of a lari^i acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or l.A.App.No. U95/200f! & co.nnocledAppaalsof VillageBharthai . ' ;.A.ApD. No. 291/2010 & connncted Appealsof VillageEijwa:;an! LA.App, No. 11.1/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePocnanp'jr • ' Page 19of29 acquisitionin 1970 or lp80 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increasemay itselfund^^rgodrastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrence\pfvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurts i}^pricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase. " ; •

¶24This Court is IT indfulof dictumofthe Apex Courtin Haiyam. StateindustrialDevilopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of con|ipensatiori for the acquired lands by adqpting comparativesales methods.WHat was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- ! "When differentcategoripoflands (or lands with different situalionatadvantages)d,re acquiredfor the samepurpose, ,"" sav for forming of a \residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situationshouldbe avoided and a uniform,rate ofcoinpensationshouldhe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification." -,

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharihai, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionaie not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur. i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., Radha SyvamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agricultural|land in Village rochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale D^eds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)which ^re basicallybetweenone set of" co-ownersand Radha Swam.iSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactbilockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of , :thclandin the villagesin questiobis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds I uA.App. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal > U.App. No. 2fM/20.l0&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' • IVN.^pp.No. :l:l.l/20a0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ; ' Pa 70 f29 ' 5>- (Iix.PW-1/4to.Ex.PW-1/10)iindicatethat its price varies irom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars—Sale Deeds (Ex.;PW-l/4to Ex.PW-l/10) did not command )• the same marketprice. It wasdependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to I each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The « I special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds JEx.PW-lMto Ex.PW-l/10)has not been brought out as the purchaseij/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the i aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, Lien it, could have been I elicited Irom him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Rap Siiigh vs. Union of India, decided on I

19.9.2011 and in the aforesajd decisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for thd acquiredlands. 27, In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to th;eir acquisition, but it has come in evidence i that the acquiredlands were hieing used for agriculturalpurposetill their. acquisition.Thus, it becomes! evident that the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person haA^ing knowledge of prevailing I _ . ^ LA.App. No. 1.195/2008& connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal l.A.App.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasari LA.App. No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 21 of 2!) '5> market price of the land in question would pay sucli a high price unless and until such purchaseis meaijitfor specialconsiderationand so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4' to Itx.PW-l/lO) ; have been rightly discarded by the ' Reference Court. |

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is; concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatiiigto Sale Deed of 27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that becaus;e this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was I situated on the National Higlliway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed I (lix.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land bui 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 I cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in i question. I

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whcthc]- adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Dctcrmined Rates for the lalternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true! market value of the acquired lands in I question. : t

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands I highlighted by Apex Court in itjs decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. R Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors^, 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-" '72. IJoyvever, in either pf the said cases whether it be the deterinin.ation of the marjcetvalue,of the accmired land with building potentiality M'itJ^. reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a -well developed layout in the neighborhood IA.App. Mo. .U35/2008& connected.ApptialsofVillaBe Bharthai ; LA.App. No. 29'i/.7.0.l0& conncctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan | 1A.App. No.3.11/2010& connected AppeaLsof Village Pochanpur; vi I i I or whetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots;in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court 'tofind out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedhy the sales ofplots in the layouts, rehedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhayefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publicationof the preliininarynotificationunder 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 couldbe done'Js 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 putand increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto he made available in that regard Asmall percentage increaseto be given shall not exceed l/5th ofthe market value of the landfound|out according to its actual user since resort to the metlipd of giving'increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " \

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA after.acquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold'rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chanel (Supia),held that it is not safejoradvisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in idetermining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehol^ lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand(Supra),a,coordinateBdnch of this Court mJai Singh (Supra)' and Sushil Kumar (Supra) hks excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not rejevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of lA.App.l|O;,n9!;/?.008&conncctcdAppealsofVillageBharthal •l-A.App,I|0. 2fM/;010&connodGdAppealsofVillageBljwasa.n LA.App. Mo. 1,11/20.1.0&connectedAppeaLsofVillaeePnchanpur Vf the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DEJa ratesfor allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rktes for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whcthei"progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the I land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBhaiithaland othervillages for developmentof I Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2o!oO, i.e., for the period intervening the I Notification for developmejit of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentiofDwarkaPhase-II,still the price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aToresaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is i unjustified. i

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt i •progressiveincrease methodjin assessmentof the market value ol the acquiredland'only when theigap is of4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbourin;-'land. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofa few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,itwould be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the: market value b}' providing appropriate LA.App. No. n9:i/2008& connKCtedAppealsofVillage Bharthai LA.App. No. 2.94/ZOlO& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Z't o' 29 escalationover the marketvalue of the nearby land of the previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, j learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhid urged that the Reference Court has • granted escalation @ 12%] per amium, which is unwaiTanted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted I escalation @ 10% per annum. Alter having perused the decision in I Sushil Kumar (Supra), 1 fm|d that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquiredj land over and above the market value determinedby the Reference:Court has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) :escalation granted by the Reference Court 12%) per annum cannot bejreducedto 10%) per annum. In this.viewof the matter,the cross-objectioijisofthe respondentare dismissed. I '35. Now what is to be s6en is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Court I is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe markcl value of the acquired land and as to v/hetherthe escalationof 12%o per annum grantedby the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1^' April,2000 till the date of I Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not. ; i

¶36Adoption of Governm|ent'sminimum raies of agriculturalland ; pertaining to the Notificaticin in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agriculturalland by viilue of-Notificationof 24"'-October,1994 declaring agricultural lands;in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Notification of the vear 1994 the land I use oi the acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to I •. , I.A.App. No. 1.195/2008& connected Apt5e;ilsofVillage Bliarthlil iA App. No. ,d5M/?.OiO& connGclndAppealsof Village Bljwasan LA.App. No. ]11/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageI'ochanpur Page 25of29 •5' presume that the acquhed lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands;. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any deveioprnentin and ai'oundtlie acquiredlands .: in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyrelieduRon by the appellantsdisclosetlratthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges froiji the evidence on record that till the issuanceof NotificationunderjSection4of 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 appellantscouldhave laid their;hands,on ottiersale instancesin the area ui question.13ut, indeedappellantscannofrelyupon the sale ofthe land in Village Poehanpurto areligjousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-i/Il)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand po|ehtialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swam, Satsang. Beas in Village Poehanpur.and the sale exemplarof VillageSamalklia(Ex.PW-1/1arecomparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the apquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/jl) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relyin., upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in vi^w of the aforc-rcierreddictum of the Apex Couit in Haryana State,IndusirialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supia),unifonnrate ofcompensationdc: e,rvesto be awarded ,i lor the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the G<|.vernmentfor the agriculmralland in .. Delhi, which generally factors;in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is ;! gap between what I.A.App.No. 119V2008& connecUidAppealsof VillageBharthal i ' LA.App, (Vo. 294/20X0&conneclodAppeal?of VillageBljwasan i l.A.App.No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpLii I- ' "• I \J would be expected to be the ^market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's!minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this 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 I the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. jMndingof the Reference Cour'j;in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bi jwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I fmdlthat the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGl Airport, Indian Oil and I Bharat Petroleum Depots and: of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a ijOO meters vide road starting from NH-8 Irom Shiv Murti side to DwarlcaSub-City, Part I and Part 11, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the I I vicinity of the acquiredlandsjhas somehowmissed the attentionof the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid locational advantage's, the acquired lancis in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phasc-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands las assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the l/\,App.No. 1.191)/2008& connGctcdAppealsofVillage Bharthal l.A,App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijvyasan; t/fv.App.No;1..1.1/2010& connectod Appcial.-:of Village PochanpUr \J settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mina NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 2.38, in thesewords:- I "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibihtyofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentiality and proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein price attributable tosuch buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact th^t it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,aijid in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved,inthe mattjers of assessing lair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instarjtcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem, with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingtJie fair market value of the acquired,lands as there arej no special features 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 Siishii Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedtjo grant 10% increaseover and above the I marketvalueofthe acquiredlands deterniinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages ( providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding]0% increaseover and above the markeivalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village -Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with . the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof lA-App,No. U9!./2008&connocledAppealsof VillageBharthal i" lA.App.,No.?.91A'010& conneclodAppealsof VillageBijwasan • I • • • ••• l;A.App. No. .1..11/20.U)&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 1 Page 2Sof29 \J I Ihe appellants of Village Poqhanpur are also allowed to the extent t indicatedabove. Thus, the maijketvalue ofthe acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perpi^^ovthe Category 'A' land and @^14,;69,600/-per bi^ha for the Category'B' lands'in question. i • I I

¶41On the aforesaid enharicement in the compensation awarded,' I statutoiybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Suiider vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are gianted,excepttor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, lor which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldjbeentitledto projoortionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objcctionsare disposedof in the aloiesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. i January 06, 2012 pkb LA.App. No, 1195/2008& connccledAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 29'1/2010&connectedAppealsof VlllagGBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ,jr p ri- \ 'J • f , i'o. (' o''~( • r • ,1 THE HIGH COURT OF iDELHI AT. NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 i , - ' r . ' , RANBIRSliARMA j Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Maan]Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMap,Mr.R.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia, Adyocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Ajdvocate: Mr.RaghuvinderGodana, Advocate Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,;Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi'andMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin|appealsfiledby IJOI) Mr.Sudhanshii Tomar, Advocate for j Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Shailma,Mr.S.K.Solanld and Mr.S.K.Rout; Advocates versus i UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. | Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatev/ith Mr.Sanjaypithalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerbia,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, • Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K^Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: ; . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR I QRPER I2.OIL2OI2 -'C.M. Ap.pL No. 752/2012("For^correction). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'' January,2012. i Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice i4App.N0.1195/2008 ; Page1 I#''"' oftlie application.Advanceqopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of e'" January, 2ok is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha'. lyhereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the applellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatijhereferenceto 'perbigha'inparagraph ao: 40 of LA.App.No: 1195/^008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe carriedoutfortliwith. In viewol-the aforesaid,|this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb JUDGE L'A.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

H= % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November , 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA. APP. 1179/2008 UOI Appellant Tlirough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/IJOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA versus MAN SINGH & ORS. Respondent Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.l^outray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate (' \ ^ Mr.I.S.Dahiya,Advocate ' - Mr.SandeepThakhur,Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocatc. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR