UOI v. Amit Banshal and Ors

ORDER %

06.0L2012 For orderssee LA.App.No.1195/2008,titledas 'RanbirSharmavs. Union of India & Anr. GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. % :• AT (GRID-A) Reserved on: November IS, -20J I Fronounced oii: Jcmuarv 06^ 2JIJ_2 LA.AP.P.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL RANBJR SHARJ\4A Appellant 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.Raghiivinder Godara, Advocate • Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.BJC.Koutray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.PankaJ Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav.Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit IChosia and Mr.l^hananjay Mehlawal, Advocates Mi-.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandcep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atiil Tripathi, Advocate, Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Raulela,(.Advocateslor respondent in appeals filed by IJOI) vers^is UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Ihrough; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdA'ccatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathalc,Mr.lVjohitrao-.1ddha'v and Ms.Na\'!in owairi, Ms-;K.Kaumiidi-Kiran,Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AJay Ven]?a, Ms.Becnashaw Soni. Mr.Miikcsh Kumar,Mr S.K.Sethi,Mr.Pawan.Matiiiir,IVir.Kunal ShariTJH, Ad^'ocal:e for DDA !..A..APP.412/2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objeclions),f.A.APP.452/2008;' LA.APP.453./2-008;•LA.APP.688/2008& CAlMo.5990/20]0'(C>oss-Objecli'ons)i i..A.APJ\(>97/2008& CM.No.433,/2009(Cross-Objections);L/\.APP.701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); I..-AP}^768/200R; l.A.APP.770/2008; I.A.A;ip.I\{). lty:i/?008 & coiincctedApppalsofVilliign iA.Aijp. No. i'.. connuC.edAppealsof Vill.^(5(; IA.App. i:ll/:n):10&-conn^a^idAppealsofViilaRc..i-ochanpiir Pagi' I oi 29 /I 1/ LA-APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/200b<5^ CM No 611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LAAPP.777/2008;'lA.APP.782/2008& CM.Ng.940/2009 (Cross-Objectionsj; LAAPP.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.81j/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; 1AAPP 829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LAAPP 844/2008-LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (CrosslObjections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA,.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.l7340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APIM032/2008& CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l046/2008; LA.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.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.xNo.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008.& CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008& CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections); 1,.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & 'CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.l7302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l086,/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,! 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cr.oss-Objections);LA;APP.l108/2008 & CM,No:3839/2009.(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l109/2008; LA.APP.l110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.l111/2008;LA.APP.l112/2008& CVlNo.3831/2009(Cross-Objections);LA,APP,1113/2008& CM,No,3826/2009 (C.'.ross-Objections);LA,APP,111.5/2008; .lA.APP,1116/2008; LA,APP,1121/2008; '• [.A.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No,550/2009(Cross-Objectionsj; ,f-A,APP,1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,1140/2008; LA,APP.1156/2008;LA.APP.l157,/2008;LA.APP.l158/2008& CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA,APP,1166/2008; LA,APP,fl67/2008& CM,No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.l170/2008; LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.li72/2008; LA.APP.l173/2008; LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; L..A.APP.1181/2008; LyV.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933.^2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1184/2008;LA.APP.l185/2008; LA.APP.ri86/2008&CM.No.7013/2009 l.A.App. No. .n95/?.008 & tonnncUidAppeal.sof VillageIJharlhal • . l.AApp, No. Z91/20.10& connected AppcaLsof VillageBijwa.wn . . LA.App. No. & connncleclAppealsofVillage! PochaiiDUr' l^age'Zol29 •V % (Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.l190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008;LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.l193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.M95/2008;LA.APP.l197/2006 LA APP 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1200/2008 1AAPP 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-Obiections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.124l/2008^>i: CM No 3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/200^ LA APP.1275/2008;LA.APP."l276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.1279/200^ 1AAPP 1280/2008;LA.APP.1281/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/200^ LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/200S LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/200S LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/200f LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.l35/200^ LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.249/2009;

1..A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA. APP.494/2009; LA.APP..507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LAvAPP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.210/2009& CM.No.976/2011 LA.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.yVPP.230/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA. APP.466/2009; LA. APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP..! 99/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.AP?.447..'2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA. APP.45/2010; .A.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP. 139/200^ LA.APP. 145/200^ LA.APP.l 91/200C L A. 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.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.l 176/2008 l./V.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/LM17 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) ' • (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 20J2 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BIJWAS. DEVBNDER KUMAR Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh lA.App. No a.l9,'j/^-00S& coiineclRclAppeals of Village Bharthal IA.App. No, 7.94/201Q& connnctfid Appeals of Village Biiwasan LA.App, No. .11.1./Z010& connectc:d Appeal.';of Village Pochanpur Page 3 of Z9 V 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 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. 52/2010 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/.2010 & Through; Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for LIOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routt-ay, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI M:r,Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP.221/2010' LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 351,''2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA,APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 438/2,010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (C LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.y\PP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP, 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP, 348/2010 LA,APP, 349/2010 LA,APP, 352/2010 LA,APP, 353/2010 LA,APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA..'\PP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 • LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 722,/2010 LA,APP, 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 73L/2010 LA.APP, 732./2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP.-99/2010 & ^ross-objections) (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND LA.App, No. .l.lQ.'j/ZOOB& conncctnd Appealsof VillagG BharlhnI LA.App. No, 2'M//01Q& conn(ictGdAppnulsofVillageBijwasan !.A,App,No. connncU'dAppealsof VillagePocha.npur . Page; 4 of 2.9 n V % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 hA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHA.T RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, A.dvocates for 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, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant inR-22) . versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain., Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SoraerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.' LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 154/2010 . 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 •489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/201] 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. LA.aVPP.. 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, 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. . 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429,/2011 522/2011 535/2011 i.A,.App, Mo, 1.1,95/2008& connoclfidAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 2.94/2010&conneclfidAppealsof Village Bljwasan LA.App No 111/2010& ccinneclcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur. •V (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

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

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing ot these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000, relating • to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by, this common order.

¶2Acquisition process for planned development of 'Lh'varkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of: 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block . comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of the appellajits herein in the afoi'csaid thi-ee villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., yWai-d No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award , No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@ ^"13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field -- with top soil) and @ ^12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentof market value of their acquired LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals.of Village Bharthal. lA.App. No.29'i/?-010& connccted Appeals of VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/20.10& connpcted Appealsof Villape Pochanpur Page6of:'.9 agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandyicquisitiohAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourtvide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@?15.00 lacs per acre foi the appellants'acquired land in Block 'A' and @?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave beendismissed.

¶5In these appeals,furtherenhancementofcompensationsoughtby the appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate ofRupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate ofRupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karmitaka HousingBoard vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer, Gadag ami Ors,, (2011)2 see 246;Anjani Molu Dcssai vs. State ofGoa andAnr.,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsiidar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir S and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgmm, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia Am\, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana & Ors.., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs'. State of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 SCC 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors w. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No, 4143/2003' titled as Smt. Indu Khorana Grant Sabhd & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer iS Anr w. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; Tltakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, LA.App. No..UP!)/?.008& connoctKdAppealsof VillageBharthai LA.App. No. 7.94/?.010 &• connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA.App. No in/20.10 Si connected Appeals ofVillagePochanpur ' ' Page 7 of Z9 •n W V- ^ > Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation,

(2010) 11, SCC 175; Risal Singh & .Ors, Vs. Union ofIndia & Ann, 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB); Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v.?. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyamma! and Am vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Ann, AIR-2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tamlon vs. Allahabad Development Authority,

(2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh . Dattatray Thirthkar V5. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) &. Ors. Fs*. Union of India S. Anr, 176(201n DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Ann, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. Union ofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SiishilKumar w. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011;LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Rant vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BkuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010 •

(170) DLT 371. , ^

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationoi the acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over a period of tin.ieand the same cannotbe limitedto the near foture alone. 7, It was pointed out by Mr.Jl.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of'Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on-theeasternside ofthe railway line is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. No. 13.35/2003& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. No. .?yi/20.1.0& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/20.1.0& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 8 of 7.9 V and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarka 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.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in,the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizraslm'd.\)to highlight that the. boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

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

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Roiit, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama l.A,App.No. & conncctad Apppal,s of Village Bharlhal •!./:^.App., No. 294/7.010&connectMAppealsof Village Bijwasan LA.App. [\lo. .111/20.1.0& connecVcdAppeals of VillaRG Pochanpur n Redds & -Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho JDass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, itwould not mean that there is no buildingpotentialitv.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and meiely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because thcic is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued bccause of any special advantagesand as per settled legal pfoposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe market price of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates fbr determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.C}odara,learned counselfor the appellantson the basis of the L,& DO rates hxed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Governmentfor'allotmentof alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acqun-ed land, determinationof its market value is LA LA.App. Mo. M4/7.010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwssan LA.App No. 11J/2C;10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 1!°'^ connectedAppealsofVillageBliarthal Pape 10 of 2S1 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis ofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Dctcrmined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of.LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the yiward 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-examination of appellant dated

7.7.2007) b) Does not account for the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ^'vas issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the GovernmentofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the laM> laid. down by various decisions in.clud.ing_in one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar. 2010(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per established law has to be considered before ascertaining the value ofthe land under acquisit ion. e) Does not deal with disparity• in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fa.ki.ra Fatil versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held, that Sale Deed,showing higher rate should not he disregarded in (.A.App. No. ll:j;i/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhal LA,App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Villageliijwasan 17\.App.No. .1.11/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 11of29 X;' . case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin 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 adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certanland. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 •in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the '. market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and 113,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inchiding 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.I W framedon 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land, use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and . came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for land, use change show that in. future land, can be-subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantlead,evidencein respectofthe 74'''amendment 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, y\>a.s • • deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Pan.cha.yat elections were held in. the area. h) Refused to apply the lo.w laid down in AIR. Supreme V Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr v.?. Union of India and. refused to consider the fact that the development in. the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser would pay for, the.subject land.

i) Ignored, the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connccted Appeal.s of Village Bharthal LA.App. Mo, 294/?.010 & connGcted Appeals of Village BiiWd.san LA.App. No. 111/2010 & conncctnd Appeals of VillagePochanpur - auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land, was acquired for development purposes of lyvvarka. Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held, that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got buildingpotentiality to 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 acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in thenearfuture. "

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details have been,providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchof appeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidarguments advancedon behalf of the appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof i.A.App. No. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal tA.App. Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan f7\.App. No. ni/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • Page 13 of 2'? urbanizationof the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatmy Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)A Ors, Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Deternlined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is . sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence foi" determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the i Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India,

(1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chaml V5. Union of India and Anr., . (2009), 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken'to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBiiwasan LA.App. No. 111/?.010& connected Appealsof VillaRG Pochanpur ' ' Page14 of 29 and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledgeof the usual prevalenttrend in the marketwouldpay sucha higherpay 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-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Court in SushilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross- • objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimujiiindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas •on r' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, maiket 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 thatthere is no scope for furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition.Collectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ' RcfeicnceCourt,whiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

17.. AJler considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalot the impugnedjudgnient,the evidenceon record and the decisionscited,what emergesis that the true marketvalue of the comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling l.A.App. No. ligVXOOS& connoctficiAppealsofVillaBe Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Villageliijwa.5an lA.App. No. 1,1.1/2010a connectHd-AppealsofVillap,ePochannur ' " Pagfi 15 ot Z9 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stEinds reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana .cS Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind, of importance or because of its explosive population;

(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; . (Hi) possibility of obtaining water and electric supplyfor • occupants of buildings to beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquired landfor buildingpurpose;

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

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

(vii) lands around the acquiredland or the acquiredland itself being in dem.and for building purposes, to ' • spec ify afew. "

¶181he potentialityof land for the purposeof developmentas also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. I<or the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for 1A.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharlhal LA.App. No, 7.fM/:?010& connocted Appealsof Village Bijwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppeal.';ofVillagePochanpur . which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra).While reiteratingthe relevantfactors for determination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Aima Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsofsmall pieces ofland relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be a groundto discardthem especially • when exemplarsof largepiecesof land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special-Land AcquisitionOfficer Anr ra. MJL Rafiq Saheb,'(2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom 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, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyamma! (Supra), wdiiletaking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards deveiopment charges was improper. Tlie pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under lA.App, No. l.lS5/2008 ,& conriccted Appcialsof Village Bharlhal 1A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appfiaisof VlllagflBijwasan LA.App. (Mo. .11.1/201.0& conneci Gd Appeals of VillagePochanpur Pagfi 17 of 29 V "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highestofthe exemplars,which is a bonafide transaction, will he considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilarlandswhosepricesrange in a narrowbandwidth, the average'thereof can be •taken, as representing the marketprice. But M>here the values disclosedin respectof tM'O sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are with referenceto dissimilarlands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-vahiation or other price depressing reasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to.. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations • pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (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 betM'een a. willing vendee and. the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed betyveen reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

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

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in .land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land, for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. IA.App, No.: 195/2008 & connected Appp.alsof ViilagG Bharllial i.A.App.No. 294/2010 & connccted .f^ppeals of VillaRG Bijwasan !A.App. No. 1] 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Villaf;e Pochar.pur ' 'On the otherhand, in urban or semi-urbanareas, where the developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as comparedto ruralareas. In som.epocketsin big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreper year, duringthe nineties.On the otherextreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated foryears or rose marginallyat a nominalrate 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 correspondingincreasesin rural areas woiddat best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate.escalationover the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contem.poraneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod. is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it. relates to q neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a. few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard, where the gap is larger. For example, for determ.ining the m.arket value of a land acquired: in 1992, adopting the annucd increase method with reference to a sale or l.A.App. No. 119Ij/200f?& connnclfidAppaalsofVillage Bh'artha! lA.App. No. ?..9t/2010 & connnclfid Appeals of Village Bijwasan lJ^.App. No..H.l/?.010 & connected Appeals of Village Foctianp'jr Pago 19 af 29 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. "

¶24This Court-is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Harymm State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods: What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesof lands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacqidredunderthe 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 exemplarstronglyreJied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., Radha SyvamiSatsangBeas had puichased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. '

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale FJceds (Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)^A'hich are basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds LA.App. No. 1.1.95/2008& connected.AppealsofVillageBharthal •.i.A.App.No. 2S'V20.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ... LA.App. No. .1.1.1/2010&conneclodAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' PageaOofZS (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command •s the same marketprice. It was dependentupon the nature and situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these .sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW--l/4to Ex.PW-l/lO) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of.these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purcl.iaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom 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 Swaini 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 of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siiigh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their, acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat'the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing iy\.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsof Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur marketprice of the land in questionwould pay such ahigh price unless and until such purchaseis meantfor specialconsiderationand so, in the consideredopinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds . (jix.PW-lM to lix.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha(Ex.PW-1/11) reliedupon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof ^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) v/as situated on the National Highway - 8 and because, vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11)vendorhad soldnotonlythe land butthe structurethereon includingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture, lane, by-lane,etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In,view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-Dctermined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. V, Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood IA.App. No. l.iyrj/ZOOS & connocted Appoals of VillaRe Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010 & conneclHcl Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App.No. .11.1/201.0ft connectcd Appeals of Village Fochanpur / Page 22 of 2H or whether it he the determination of.the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to theprice fetched by sale of buildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to befetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched ifsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched •by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is tofind out the market value of the acquired land with re.ference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its value by a sm.all 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 increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicating that 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 leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in' Lai Chmid (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chand (Supra), a coordinateBench ofthis Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of •tKApp.No...l.iy:)/?.008& conncctndAppealsofVillagp L'harthal i-i!>,.App. No, 291/^010& connnclcciAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. Mo. lU/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 23 of 29 $ the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find-that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of 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. escalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notification for developmentof Dwarka Phase-II, sfill the price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris morethan the aforesaidescalatedprice f and .therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land'only when the gap is 9f,4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Nofifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No.:i.9ii/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l.A.App. No.2.94/2010& connected Appealsof Village Bljwasan l.A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 24of29 esca]ationover the market vahie of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶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 coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil-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 Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt ^ @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of • the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe 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 annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date offixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April,2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the-Notifrcation in question, has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages m question to be •••-. urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto ^ l-A.App. Mo, Jiss/adcs & connectedAp|je;ilsofVillage Bharthnl LA.App. Mo. 291/2010&. conncclfidAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. [^Jo. M.1/2010&connectcdAppealsofVillage!Pochanpur ' pape25of29 . / presume that the acquired lands had, gained potentiahty for being consideiedas developedlands. Ihe evidenceled is lackingon thej vital aspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radhg Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct,' 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been incicasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentiality'.ofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewiththe acquiredlands and so the contiguityot the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of=the afore-referreddictum of.the Apex Court in Haiyana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDQ (Supra),uniform,rate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price lixed by the Governmentfor the agricultural'land m Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is a gap between what l-A.App.Mo, 1195/2008&connectodAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App, No, 291/2010&connectedAppeal?of,VillageBijwasan l.A,App,No, 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 26 of 2.9 would be cxpected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown,Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands,in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as in Sushil'Kumar(Supra)and I fmd no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jcii Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question, landing of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,Indian Oil and Bharat,Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands' as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the iy\.App. No. 1195/2008 (4 connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.App. No,294/201.0& connected Appeals of VillagG Bijvyasan lA.App. No;111/2010 & connected Appeals of VillaBe Pochanpur Page Z7of 29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mina NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, inthesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a biuMingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accoimtthe increasein price attributable tosuch buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem With equivalence by uniformly applying tlie Govermnent'sminimum prices tor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumm (Supia),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof l..A.App. Mo, I. M". .11^^2008&connnclcdAppealsof VillageBharthal "HP. .Mo. a conncctodAppealsof VillageBijwasan • App. Mo. .Ul/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur l-A.App, LA the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per_,bi^:Jfor the pi-gh;^J Category 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per bi-phalbrthe Category 'B' lands in question. -i.-' 41, On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siatutQ])'benefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs\ UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, lor which periodoi delay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid, 1hcse appellants,would be entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-pbjectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the.Registrar Gcnej-al ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets , _ be accordinglyprepared. JUDGE January 06, 2012 pkb LA.App. Mo. 1195/2008&connnclcdAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.'App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VlllagGBijwasan lA.App. Np. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoclnanpur •J /"•' I rO'i 0-' % ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -f-LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SIIARMA • . Appellant Through:. Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.JSfsgiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for . Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates > versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith. Mr.Sanjay Pathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice I LA.App.No.1195/2008 ' Page1 ^ _ i f ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6"^ January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aloiesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be .read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. - In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb ;UNIL GAUR) JUDGE lAApp.No. 1195/2008 Page 2 V\

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA. APP. 1176/2008 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar, SeniorAdvocate with Mr.SanjayPathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI versus AMIIT BANSHAL AND ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Panlcaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Kliosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.AjayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.MukeshKumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma,Advocate for DDA CORAM: ^ ^ HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR