UOI v. Rohtash & Ors

ORDER

06.0L2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb ^..^S^^GAUR) JUDGE r/ .• o OF DELHI (GRID-A) Reserved on: November iS. 2011 ProKiouncedon: January 0j6, 2012. LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHA.RTHAL RANBJRSHAW\4A Appellant rhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AraitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA'erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohfas, Advocare. Mr.Raghvivinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Megi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rouland Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates, Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Vadav.Mr.]3eepakKhosia, Mr.SainrtKhosla and Mr.]3haRarijay Mehlawal, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, AdvoiMe Mr.Sandeep Thakiiur. Advocate Mr.Atui Tripathi, Advocate. !VIr.N.8.,Ne.giand Mr;H.S.Raulfc^.la,(AdvocatesJor respondentin appi^alsfiled Hy UOI) versus liNR-JN()]• INDIA& ANR." Respondents 'Ihroutih; Mr.SanjayPoddar,S-eniorAd\'ocatewith Mr.Sanjii)- J^'athak,Mr.Mohjtrao..Tadhavand Ms.Naviin Swain.- Ms.K.KaumudlKiran,Advocatesfor1.AC/U0I • Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.BecnasiiawSoni. Mr.Mukcsh •Kumar,Mr S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanIviathur,IVlr.Kunal Sharma, Ad\'ocaxt; fer i)L)A i..A..APP,4-i.:/2008& CM.No,,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections).I AAPP 4S'^/":'00''- iA.APP.4«/2008;LA.AP!>.688/2008^ C^^.No.5990/20]0(Cross-Obiectiins); I.A.Ai ]•.()•,.7/2008 &. CM.No.43j./2009(Cross-Objections).;LA..APF.701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Obiections); I \,APF.768/2008; I.A.APP.770/2008; i..'\.App.i^;o. iifj.v'.?.OO.Sa connectedAppRHis(if Villngi;Bh:ir!hill ia.Ai5p. No. y'jn/Ahc-S. r.oniiuc<.edAppt-ilsof Village!BHwawn IA.App. .'70,10&LOtin(:a';,dAppealsof Viilaccl-ochanpiir LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LAAPP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No,611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008;. LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 ,(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA,APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820./2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; L.A.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/20n (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.S19/2009 (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.599/20d9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008; l.,A.APP. 1047/2008;LA.APP.l 048/2008& ClVl.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2,008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No.J 7262/2008 (Cross-Obje.ctions);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.APP.l055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No. 1557/2011 • • (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & ' CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1060,/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & ' C.M.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cfoss-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-Objection.s); L/V.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093./2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA:APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No:383^/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.l109/2008; LA.APP.l110/2008 &. . CiM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);, LA.APP.l 111/2008; L,A,APP.l 112/2008 & - CM.No;383]/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CM.No.3826./2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; [.A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); .i,A.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 fe Clyl.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP.l 135/2008 & CM,No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); . 1,.A.APP.1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 iCross-Objections); LA.APP, 1140/2008; LA.APP.l 156/2008; LA.APP.l r57,/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.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008; LA.APP.l 170/2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA.APP.l 173/2008; LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008;" LA.APP. 117.9/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008; LA.APP.l 182/2008; LA.APP.l 183/.2008& CM.No;6.933./2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP. 1186/2008& CM.No.7013,/2009 I.A.App. No, 519.'i/?.008& connficted AppeaLsof VillagK Sharthal l,A.ApB.No,Z9i/2o.i,o corinGctedAppeaLsof Village in ' " LA,App, No, :L,ll/.!njO& connectficiAppeal.^ofvillasoPoch'aiiDur' ' ' ' ' Page Zof29 % (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/20^; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008;LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP^57$008;LA.APP.119772008 LA.APP.1198/2008^CM^«.6ai5/2I}i}^^to-s^(^'ections);LA.APP.1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008(jLA.APP.1203/2008Ja.APP. 1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008;LXaFP.1213/2MCLA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& C.M.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. 1,277/2008; LA.APP.l279/2008; LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP. 1:283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008; •LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39,-'2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; 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; I.A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA. APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP. 1.37/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP.l 44/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA. APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/20] 1 LA.,APP.211/2009; ' LA.APP.220./2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.224./2009; LA.APP.227./20Q9; LA.yVPP.230/2009 & (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; I.A.APP.572/2009; LA, APP.404/2010; LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA. APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA-.APP.13./2011: I.A.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.245./2009; L.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.5 13/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; i.A.APP.1138,/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.305/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.481/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.506,'2059; LA.APP.510/2009; LA.APP.567/2009; :LA.APP.48,/2010; LA.APP. 1176/2008; (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B;LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the l..and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December

¶082011 Pronounced on:'January

¶062012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). Dl^VENDBR KUMAR Appellant Through: .Mr.R,S.'f'omar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. No .119.'V:'.008& coiineclodAppealsofVillage BharUial i-A.App. No. 294/2010'& connectedAppealsof Vlliage Bijwasnn I.A.App No. 11,1/2010& connectedAppnal.sofVillage Pochanpur n Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Roiitray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOl &^ANR l.A.APP.. TA.APP;. L.A.APK L.A.APP. LA.APP-. la.app: LA.APP: LA.AP?: I.A.APP; LA.APP: LA.APPl I.A.APP; LA.APP! LA.APP; LA.APP-i 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 & Respondents riirough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao • Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forLIOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and . Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI, Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 7] & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forfJDA. • LA.APP. U/2010 LA LA.APP. 53/2010 ' LA LA.APP. 57/2010 LA LA.APP. 221,/20]0./- LA LA.APP. 246/2010 LA LA.APP. 283/2010, . LA LA.APP. 288/2010 ' LA LA.APP. 296/2010 .LA la.app'. 347/2010 'LA •LA.APP. 35],•'2010-, LA LA.APP. 356/2010 LA LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA LA.APP. 406/2010 • LA LA.APP. 438/2,010 LA LA.APP. 724/2010 L.A LA,APP. 729/2010 LA LA.APP, 759/2010 LA LA.APP. 286/2010 ,LA LA.APP. 80/2010 LA C.M.No.964/2011 (Cross-APP. 49/2010 .A:PP. 54/2010 .APP. 59/2010 .APP. 223/2010' ..APP. 277/2010 .APP. 284/2010 :.APP. 289/2010 ,APP, 313/2010 ,APP. 348/2010 .:APP. 352/2010 .APP. 357/2010 •APP. 760/2010 ..APP. 362/2010 .APP. 407/2010 •APP, 588/2010 ,A.PP, 725,/2010 ,APP, 731./2010 .APP. 764/2010 .APP. 364/2010 .APP. .99/2010 •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. :l.a.app. I.A.APP. la'app. LA.APP. .la.app. & 51/2010 55,'2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010

28.5/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/20:W)- 359/2010 363/2010

40.8/2010 72:2/2010 726,'2010 73:^/2010

828./2010 aielatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-;2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) ' , • and' • : • J..A.App.No. .1195/2008& connectpclAppealsofVillageBhartiinl l-A.App. No. 29'i//0.10&:connfir.tc!dAppealsofViliage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 112/2010,& conneclcdAppeal.;ofVillagePochanpur . l-age 4 of 29' •% (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06 2012 J.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through; Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma,Mr.S.K.SoIankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,A:dvocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40 44 to49,59,63 to71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus IWION OF INDIA & ANR Through; Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocatewith Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrad Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain.,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBlhariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Vlr.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.AP]'. :il 1/2010 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 1052/2010 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. L.A.APP. , L/\.A.PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 .•209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 .'397/2010 •433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/20] I-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. 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

420./2011 522/2011 535/2011 |.A..App,NO. U9V2008&connactcdAppealsof VillageBharthal tA.App. No. 294/2010&connecledAppealsof VillageBijwasan •A.^pp No 111/2010&copnectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur. Page 5 of2M % (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&•B/LA/1341'7 dated

13.12.2,000issued under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotijicationNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/lA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating -to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and 1ochanpui are beingdisposedoi by tliis commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- // in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertainmg to vast tract of agricuitiiral land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellajitsherein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby (he Respondentsvide three separateAwai'ds, i.e.. Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward ' . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@?13.82 lacs per acre for Biocl< 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?i2.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired :,.\.App.IMo. 119^/2008&connojctedApppals.ofVillageBharthal 1-A.App, No. 29<i/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan !A.App. No. ,11:../2010&cnnnEctedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A', and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal arid Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Homing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Ors,, (2011) 2 ,SCC 246; Anjani Molu Dessai State ofGoa

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram (snd Ors vs.. State ofHaiyana .

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Special Tehsiidar (Lastd Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SeC 661; and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; CMndha

(D) through LRs vs. The Special 'Land Acquisition Officer, 2011(2)'SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of 'Haryana. « 2010(9) SCAI^K 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCALl'. 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003'titled as Smt. Indu Khorana ra. Gram Sabha if Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 S(."C 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibkaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, !-A..App.(^io, & conncictodAppealsof VillagRiiharthsl ;.A.App, No. 7.9'l/?.010&• connHctcdAppnalsofVillage;Bijwasan •A.App. No in/2010ci conriHctodAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • ' ' . " Page7of 29 n Gujarat and Anr" AIR 2001 SC 2424; Harymta State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC US] RisalSingh UnionofIndia& Aim, 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB); of India and Am% (2009) 15 SCC 769; Genera! Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiMvanbhai Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Vaiiiyammaiand Anr vs. Special (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Dattatray Thirthkar w. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238' Kapil Mehra (Major General) Ors, Vs, Union ofIndia 176(201n.DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled ?is SuratSingh Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Ann, decided on 24.04.2008; Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627" Satpa! if Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2()08titled as SmhU Kjimar vs. Union of India, decided on i6.09.2011; r,A.-APP. No.59/2007 tided as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06,2011;and SStuleRmtvs. Union.ofIndia, 2010

(170)D1,T37I. strengthof the albre.saiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguingcounsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be fn-st understood in order to appreciate'itspotential which must be adjudgedkeeping in vie,y the developmentin the area overaperiodof time and the samecannotbe limitedto the nearfuturealone.

¶7It was pointedom by Mr.K..S.T"mar.counsel tor appellantsthat ..•lewan-Jodhpur broad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal.'dividingit into two parts ..e-, on the easternside ofthe railwaylineis Ute tGI Airport,New Deihi •A.App.No. 1135/2003&conno.cteclAppealsofVill.s,lih.rthal '> pp. No. VM/iaiO&connoctcdAppwisofVillageBijwasan . pp. IMo. 11.1/2010&conn(!ctodApppal.5ofVi|laBt!Poch;jnptir , • . • P3ge8of7.9 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road tOO meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the' agricultural land into two portions;'(i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned counse.! for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extensioii oi IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin.theyear 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageB.harthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 .for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the landS'Onthe western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-IL, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention.was drawnto the aks sizraslmmpto highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor 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 Notihcationof 16"' October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land of VillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notilicationof24^'' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by xMr.S.K.Rout, learned counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama No. 1.195,.':^.008& connectadAppGal.sofVillageBharthal No. 294./9.010a cormyctcdAppaalsofViiiagG Bijvi/asan . No. .111/20.1.0&connnctodAppcaksof VillagePochanpur . Pagn9of2S lA.App. !A App.. LA.App. &On. vs. LandAcqmsitionOfficer,Bydembad&Ors, (\995) 2see,305, which has been consideredby tlie Apex Court in its iater mUdho Bass vs. StateofHatyana& 0«., 2010(9)SeALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepmg in view the developmentin the area over aperiodoftime and the same cajinot be limited to a near future alone and if after tlie acquisition,ifthe.autlioritiesdo not putthe lai,d to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthc]-e is no buildingpotentiality. i0. Kehaiice was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said vai'iation,these sale exemplarscannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the Referenceeourl, because there is no basis to concludethat diese sale exemplarsare overvalued becauseof any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluDessai vs. Stateof€oa . mdAm-.,(2010) 13 SCC 710,the averageofsaleexemplarsoughtto be taken as-representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarerelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circleralesfor detenniningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. n. Assessmentof market,value of the acquired land was sought bv . Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe I& DO rates fixed by the Goventmem aitd also on the basis of pre- .• determmed rates fixed, by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternate • Piots ,n the year 2000-2001.Keepmgi" view the location,situationand . po.cnt.ahtyof the acquired land,-determinationof its market value is -• .PP Nc.Uj,,,(.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur . • ' sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village3amalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugned judgmenton the following grounds Ignores the acknowledgement on-., the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated z3.]0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petinon No.19012 of' 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant (dated

7.7.2007) 3, b) Does not accountfor the.Jac! that the Public Notice • ' . dated 1.8.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland 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 ,^^•^•^001 issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital •territory ofDelhiis not in accdrdancewith the law laid -, down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'hie Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar.2010(3)see 661. ^ : d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per established,law has to be considered,beforeascertaining^ the valueofthe landunder.acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent ease of Chirida Fa.ki.ra Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has .specificailyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin lAApp. No. liaV2008&.connectedAppnalsof VillageUhnrthal • lAApp. No.-?94/2010&conpoclndAppealsofVlllap,GBijwasan LA,«pp. No. .Ul/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanour i • Page 11 of 29, 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 violalion of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v.s". Slate 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 Notificationof the MunicipalCorporation of Delhi, the land, use of. Village Dhool Siras a.nd 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 Governmentfor land use change show, that in future land can be subjected to residential: commercial and other pennissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantlead evidencein respectof the 74"' am.andmenf of the Constitution of India, .w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, M>a.s deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor _ was electedfrom, there. No Pcmchayat 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 considerthe fact thai the developmentin the area has a direct ejject on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpayfor. the.subject land. 1) Ignored the fact • thai Respondent 'No. 2 ^had also :.A.App.No. 1195/2008& connKcledAppealsofVillageliharthai LA App. No. & connncledAppealsofVillageBijwa.san ' L,\.App. |\]o.111/2010& conncclndAppealsofVillage Pochanpur auctioned similarly sit2.iated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and. concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use of the land although the land, was* acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It ' is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and. these areas ceased, to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityof the said Land. In Sangunthalav. Ta.h.sildar

(LA), (2010) 3see. 661 it was held,that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotent.ia.Utyto be used for buildingpurposes in unmediate 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 aportion,oj the land,is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potentialof beingput in. betteruse as housesites in the nearjiiture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pai and others of LA. App. No. J47/2009,the tactual detailshave been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappeaisin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14, Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof !.A.App,Mo. .1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBhatthal •..A App. Mo. 294/2010&conncctfidAppealsof VNIagG Bijwasrin •A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur urbanizationof tiie,landsin the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Makesh DaMatray 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 ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct,' 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence ioi" determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the 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 whileplacingrelianceupbn the decisionsin Union of India,,2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs, India,

(1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Cham! vs. Union

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as . Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in piice in a shortperiod cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/ZOlO& connectedAppealsofVillage Biiwasan LA.App. No. lil/,-'.OiO&connectedAppealsof VillaBoPochanpur ' ' ' • >14 f29 and the purchaseras no prudentperson having taiowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin 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-DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of tlie decisionof Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis Courtin SushUKumar(supra)andMajSimgh (supra). ' •

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by •Mr.SanjayPoddar, learned senior counsel for tlie Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has already been factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I Apiil, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum,^ market value of the acquired lends has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in (,,"p,,) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RclcrenceCourtwhiletakingintoconsiderationtlie appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @,0% per a,™um and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidexlenl:.

¶17Alter consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjtidgment,the evidenceon -cordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe iruemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling LA.App'No' irL/?cia& liijwa.san P^. NO. ,.21/2010&connectedAppealsof ^/illagePochanpur • Page 15 ofZ'J seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands j'eiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haiyana sS Ors., 2010(9) SCAUE 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, religiousor 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; possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupantsof buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

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

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired lancl which m.ay become availableto the occupiersof buildings,ifbuih on the • acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being-in demand for building purposes, to specify a few. " . . ' IS. 1he potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. Tor the said jDuiposc, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for !A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppe;il5ofVillage Bharthal iA.App. No. 7.'MJ2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwajan LA App. No. .I.i:/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur san Page; 16 of 29 r\ 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 iactors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the.exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be a ground to discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC ^

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behall of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference; eithei in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similaily 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 tiue that the burden ol proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with.advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyamma! (Supi-a).whiletakingnote ofdie 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 AnjaniMoiu Dessai (Supra) deserve altention, which are as under:- lA.App. No. 11.55/2008& coriricc!;edAppiialsofVillageBharlhal lA v:p. IMo. 291/2010&connactedApptiaisofVillageBijwasan l..A.App,Mo. .1.11/2010fi connedGdAppealsofViilagnPochanpur p-p-.17 f-g 22: "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, Mnll be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But M'here the values disclosed in respect of two 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 Fakira Paiil (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 bona fide 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 yvhich could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between.reasonable prudent persons, acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis tv determine the market value."

¶23Principles to determine the market vakie of the acquired lands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Gil ami Natural Gas Corporation LM. ?

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availabilityoj land for developmentin the area, and the demand for kind in the area. In rural areas unless there is a.ny prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gixidual,withoutany suddenspurtsorjvunps. lA-.App. No. 1195/2008& connnctedAppnalsofVillageBharthal i.A.App. No. 294/2010& conncctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 1]1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur• Pgge -,9 5^' t On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high . and where there is construction activity all around, the • escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as 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 rem.ote rural areas where there was no chance of. any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10%) to 15%) per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5%> to 7.5%oper 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 reasonsfor applying a higher rate of increase, or • any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwould dependupon the same. Normally, recourseis taken to the mode of determiningthe market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved,market value of nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactions or acquisition),where there is'no evidence of any contem.poraneous sale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is upto four tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring la.nd.. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger, for example,for determiningthe m.a.rket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or ..A,App.,Mo.1.195/2008& connfictsdAppealsofVillage Bhortha! . ' • '..A.Apo. No. 294/2010& connnctedAppealsofVillage I3iiwa:;an LA.App. Mo. 11.1/.7.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpLir .' •• ' p io-.-q acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years', the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergodrasticchange apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceof varyingperiodsofstagnationin pi ices OT suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard, ofincrease. "

¶24This Court-is mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Court in SMe IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(m7DC/(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- ' • -. ' ^'Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands Mnth different siiuationaladvantages)are 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 anda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare 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 purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (,Hx.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)v^'hich are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang Beas mrespectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landin,thevillagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds ' '-A.App.No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal .A.App. No. 294/20.10&. connoctodAppealsof VillageBijwasan • ' ' • ..A./,:)p.No. in/20:0& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' • i (bx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-i/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined b)^ the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeofthe aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedtrom him as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Ra] Siiigh ps. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamuipurwas discardedwliileholdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instantmatters, thoughthe land use of the acquired lands was changedmuch priorto their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acqun-edlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not . developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing lA.App. No. 1.195/2003&connectGdAppealsof VillageIJharthal ' • lA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan fA.App. No. 111/2010&conne.rtodAppealsof VillagePochanpur v(y m 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 (Jix.PW-lM to Itx.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So. far as the sale-exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) .relied upon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosing exorbitantprice of ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this,sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National liighway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (J^x.PW-1/11)vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon includingtube well, boring,fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane,etc., therefore, it had letched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in question, z9. Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice ofsimilarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whetheradoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DcterminedRates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question. . . 30. Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P, Ram Reddyand Ors. Land:Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvalue ofthe acqvuredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby saleofplots in a we// developedlayoutin the neighborhood A.App, No. .1 l'j;)/2008&connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal ^:.A.App,No. 294/2010&conncctRdAppfialsofViilagGBijwasan ^ :.A,App. No, ft connectodAppealsof VillagePochanpiir or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land, with buildingpotentiality with reference to, thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of btiildingplots 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 publicationof the preliminarynotification under Section 4(1) oj the Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired-landsbecom.es available, then what could,be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired,land -with reference to the relevant date of publicationundei"Section.4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon. the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the. neighborhoodof the acquired l.a.nd. indicatingthat there M.>a.s no im.m.e.dia.te d.ema.n.d., 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 Cham! (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment lates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Lhand(Supra),acoordinateBench of f;his Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.Adp.No..]l<jV?.008&conn.ctodAppealsofVillagPBharKuil ;.A,.Dp.N". &connnclGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan •-A.App.No. 111/2010&connecledAppealsof VillaB.Pochanpur m the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, 1 find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotments,for fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallands in question. Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 mVillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-L It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the ycai 1J)84 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris morethan the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of •, : • the Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra), eautioningthe Courts to adopt p.-ogressiveinerca.semethod in assessmentof the marlcct value oi^ the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyondtiiatit may be unsafe, even if it relates to aneighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap between the tw-o Notifications,i.e., ofDwarka Phase-I and Dwarica Phase-IIis ofsixteenyearsand therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate • pp. "-."l'2010&connecttidAppealsof VillagePochanpuT cscaJationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland of the previous3'ears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebench of this Court in Sushii Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. Alter having perused the decision in Sushii Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushii Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceC^lourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. Inthis view of the matter,the cross-objectionsoi the respondentare dismissed.

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

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum j-ates 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 Nofificafionof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNofificationofthe year 1994 the land use ol the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppenlsofVillageBharllKil lA.App. No, impmo &. conncctndAppealsof Village Bijwasan i-A.App. No. Ill,'M10& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • ' l-age 25 of 29 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 ni question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang.Bea. heavilyreliedupon by the^appelUmtsdisclosethat the sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificatioriunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands-were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotemialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land ill Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe saleexemplars Radha Swanv Sanang. Bea, i" Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldta(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samall<ha (Ex. PW-l/l,) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to .grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore,in viev. of the afore-referreddictum ofthe Apex Court in (Supra),un.iformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturaTland 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 ^ ST

¶0Ia/20.10&connact.dAppealsofVillagePochanpu, Psge 26 of 29 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 Siishil 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 afore-said cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question, landing'of the ReferenceCourtin matterof VillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation of the acquired lands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof'the IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from N.H-8 , Irom Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part H, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity ol: the, acquiredlands has somehow missed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof aloiesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume higher buildingpotentialitybeing-invicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market value oi" the acquired lands as assesse^d by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the !.A App. Nn. 119L/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageiiharlhal l-A.App. No. 294/2010&connecledAppealsof Village Bijwasan IA.App. No.-1.11/2010& co.nnectedAppealsofVillagePoclianpur ' . settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- '•When once a conchision is reached that there was the possibilityof the^ acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientlo hold that the acquiredland had a ui .ing potentialiiyand proceed to determine its market value takinginto account the increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentiality. "

¶39Consideringtile fact that il would be very difficuitto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the faet that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatttiem with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computing;the fair market value of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeatures to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Smhil Humav(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby theKelercnceCourtin 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 ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bharthaland Village Biiwasan.While treatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with appellantsof VillageBhatthaland VillageBiiwasan,the appealsof ^, |.,o. No. .1..11/20.1G&conn.ctodAppealsof VlllagGPochanpur fafie 23 of 29 »> Ihe appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesmquestionis determined@?16.50,000/-per>Sh^orthe Category 'A* latid and @?14,69,600/-per bilhTforthe Catett^^B' lands in question. \v.i

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded,' staiuiorybenefitsas per the I.andAcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment I'cported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, for xvhich periodofdelayno intereston tlieenhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42Ihe above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof J'n the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar OtiiLialol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06,-2012 pkb AppearofVllagoBhartha, .• pp. No. .1.11/2010&connoctcdAppealsofVlllagGPochanpur r '7 , •: .! , -i •; i' i '• • (SUNIL G Mo - Pagn 29 of 29 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +• LA. APP. 1195/2008 ' RANBIR SI-IARIVIA Appellant Through: .Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,• , Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,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.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION' OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mi'.MohitraoJadhavand ^ , Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Aj.ayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. Amita Singh, r. "i '• . Mr.BanlceyBihari Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand * • Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR %

12.0: C.M. Ap.pL No. 752/2012 (For correctiom). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof6^''January,2012. • Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice •LA.App.No. 1195/2008 • Page 1 ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthisapplicationhas alreadybeen given:to remainingcounselfor the appellants.. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the alore.<:aidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants:-Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'inparagraph ao: 40 of LA.App.No! 1195/2008.be read as 'per acre'. Necessary cQLuectionsbe:.;Caj.xiedoutforthwith:. .In viewotthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof pkb. 12, 2012 JUDGE AApp.No. 1195/2008 Page 2

* % -I- % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1203/2008 Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 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/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharrna, Advocate for DDA versus ROHTASH & ORS. Through: Respondent 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.Routray, 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.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR