UOI v. Lakhi Ram and Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008,titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vj'. Union of India & Am. IL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06,2012 pkb % IN TOE HIGH COURT OF DELEfl A1' NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 13, 20 J1 'Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) I LA.APP..] 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL RANBIR SHAR1\4A Appellant Tliroiigh; Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA'erma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. iMr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.PI.S.Rautela, 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.fiS.Rauiela, Advocate - Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Triparhi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus . ' UNIONOFINDIA& ANR. ' Respondents' 'I hruugh: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAd\'ocatewith Mr.Saai'dy Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao. Jadha-v' and M.s.Navlin Swain. Ms.K.Kaumudi KirarL Advocates for L/aC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Becnashaw Soni, Mr.lVliikesh Kumar, Mr S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawiin Mathur, Mr.Kunal Shanria, Advocate for DDA \ _ . . . !..^.APP.412/2.008 & CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections). f.A.A.PP.452/2008; LA.A?P.4fi3/2008; LA.APP,688/2008^ CA^.No.5990/20]0(Cross-Objeclions); i.A.APJ\697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections).;LA.APP.70i/20C8& CMNo.510/2009 (Cross-Objections): !.A,APP.768/2008; I.A.APP.770/2008; l..'\.A;.-'p.Ko. ri<J.'V?.00jia coiinccted Appi;;ilsof Villiigf;Bh-jrlhiil ! A..i\ijp.No.S. r.orinoried Appt.-ul.'!of \/ill;i(»r:Bi.iwiiidn IA.Anp. N'l). & connoac.d Appcali of Viila(!(:l"-othanpiir Pagu I of 29 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2()09 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No;615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 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; !.,A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP;833/2008; LA.AP]'.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM'.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections) LA.APIM032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross^Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008 ]"A.APP.l047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& ,CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008 LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008 LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No. 1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0bjections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & • CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); I.A.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. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 .(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009(Cross-Objections);LA:APP.i108/2008 & CM.No;3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008 & • CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.ll 11/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.ll 13/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA./\PP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008 fA.APlM 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 &' CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections) I.A.API'. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP.l 135/2008 & CFvl'.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008 LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; L/V.APF.l158/2008 & CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP!1166/2008 LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008 LA.APP.1170/2008; LA.APP.1171./2008;LA.APP.1172/2008; LA.APP.1173/2008 LA.APP. 11 75/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.l 181/2008 LA.APP.l 182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008&' CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP.1186/2008&'CM.No.7013/2009 ) IA.App. No.n'J5/?.008 a connccted Appeals of VillilHeBharthal ' • • .

1.A App. No.Z!M/2010& connected Appeals ofVillageBijwasiin LA.App. No. l.r.T/.'-niO& connncleciAppealsofVlllajjaPocKanour' Page2o|-29 (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008 LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008 LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009;

1.A. APP. 140/2009; lA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; L/\.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.'S11/2009; LA.APP.572/2Q09; ],A.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.yVPP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.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./20]1; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447./2009; LA.APP.4S0/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009: LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP,45/2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008; .A.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 13 9/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 . LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.AiPP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002', Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). • DlWriNDER KUMAR Appellant Through: .Mr.R,S-Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh lA.App. i\io .lJ9:i/;!008 & conneclnd Appnals of Village BharUial lA.App. No. 7.94/2010& connected Appealsof Village Bijwasan LA.App No. 1.L1/Z0i0& conncctcd Appeals of VillagePochanpur IK Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46, 49, 50-69,73, 75,76) versus UOl & ANR . 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 & lA.APP LA.APP. L.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. [.A.APP. LA.APP. r.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate Avith Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates . for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and 'Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr,Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 1_.1/2010 LA.APp'.53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/20JO LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APR 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. 438/2010 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 (Cr 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.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010' LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.y\PP. 407/2010 LA.APP, 408/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 L.A.APP. l22i2Q 10 l.A.APP.

725./2010 LA.APP. 726/2010

1..A.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP.. 732/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. 828./2010 .LA.APP. 364/2010 • LA.APP. 99/2010 & •QHs-objections) (Relating to Notification No. 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 .1135/2008& connectRdAppeals of VillageBharthnI IW.App. No. 291.//.010& connoctad Appp.alsofVillageBijwasan !y\.App.No. ll'i/2010 & conneclod Appealsof VillagePochanpur % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 ].A.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants. Mr.B.i). Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor 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 UNI ON 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.BankeyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. . 111/2010 . 160/2010 .228/2010 .254/2010 .292/2010 .307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/201]' LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA,APP LA.APP • LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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 121/201] 485/2011 525/201] 554/2011 . 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 129/2011 521/2011 526/20 n-591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. L-A.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APP. L/V.APP. LA..A.PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 156/2010 .215/2010 .250/2010 270/2010' 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522,.'2011 535/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.App. No. U.95/Z008& conncctedAppealsofVillageBharthal L/i.App.No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A,App No 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur. (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated .13.12.2000issuedunder Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUML GAUR %

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcicioicwith the consentoflearned counsel for the partiespresentat the healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating - to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13 December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricuhural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Kstates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., yUvard No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@ ?13.82 lacs per acre for IBlock A (level field —with top soil) and ^12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil). • '

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired l-A.App. l\)o. 119!i/2008& connt'ctedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal. LA.App. No. ?.9<i/?.010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App.No. &connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur' Pageeofzg .th 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 and 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, Karmitaka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition 'Officer, Gadag and ' Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai w. State ofGoa and Anr.,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State'of Haryana and Anr., • (2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

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

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002'(62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana & • Ors., 2010(9) SeALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab '& •Ors., 2011 (9) ' SCALJ't 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors V5. State of 'Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 See 568; W.P.(C)No. 4143/2003'titled as Smt. Indu Khorana ra. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (20.11) 7 see 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, lA.App. No. .lia/POOS a connoctRdAppealsofVillageSharthal l.A.App.No.7.94/2010&• connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan iA.App.No in/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' • ' ' ' ' ' Page 7of29 ,\lo Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15; RisalSingh& Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union ofIndia and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPaid and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR. 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled Si&:SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRsandOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004)10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423'; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKum-ar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled 'as' Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;'dnd-Bhule-Mamvs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371. • •

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing'counsel.forthe appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturafland 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 time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line, of'Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into two parts, ' i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI'Aiiport,New Delhi UN.App. No. 1135/2008 & coiinectnd Appeals of VillageBhaiihal lA.App. No. 2yi/2.010 & connected Appealsof Village DIJwasan • • . IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Page8of29 [o.- 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 Aiiport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farni Houses are located on the . land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension ol IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslnvA\)to highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous. '

¶8It was strenuouslyurged byMr.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 Notification of 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 Village Bharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewof the Notificationof 24'" October,1994. 9, It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the'appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.App. No. i jy5/.X008& connocVedAppnalsofVillageBharthal I7\ App.,No.291/2010& connectodAppealsofVjilageBijwasan LA.App. No. 1,1.1/;;010& connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur Page9of29 Redd!&Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later •decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged Iceepmgmview the developmentin the area over aperiodof 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, it wouldnot meanthatthereis no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learnedcounsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlight•. that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued bccause of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessaivs. StateofGoa amiAm\, (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 exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances; therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimum,rates/circlerates for deteniiiningthe maiketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learned counselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates lixcd 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 acquired land, determinationof its market value is l7\.App.No. 1195/2008&cnnnoctedAppealsof VillageBharthal ' ' LA.App, No. 294/?.010& connectodAppeal?,of Village;Bijwasan . • LA.App No. l'lj/2010&connccledAppealsofVillagePochanpur . • ' d 1 , Page 10 of .29 sought"on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined 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 acknowledgem-ent on the part of the respondent about the Aw^ard No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.J0.2002 being flaM'ed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred, to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) . . ' • b) 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. AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the Gov&nrnentofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the laM> laid. down by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, Sarigunthala 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 .acquisition. 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 Fakirci Patil versus Special "Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Llon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deed showing higher rate shoidd not be disregarded in l-A.A|ip.No. ,ll;J'i/2008 Si connected Appealsof yillageHharthal I.A.App.No. 291/2010 & connectfid Appeals of Village Dljwasan lA.App.No. 111/7.010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur , . Page 11of29 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 ^13,3 6;000 in Block B in violation of the laM> laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v.?. State of Haiyana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial ^and. other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"" amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Mumcipal Corporation Act was amended and the area vt^'here the land is. situated, was • • deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Re.fused to apply the law laid down in AIR Stipreme Court 3467, Ranvir-Singh and Anr vs. Union of India and refused to consider the'fact that the development in the area has a direct eifect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpay for, the-subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had ,also LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connficled Appeals of VillagpBharthal LA.App. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwa.san LA.App. No.111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ . Pagel2of29 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about X2.6 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 althoughthe land was acquiredfor development purposes of l)^varka Phase

¶11It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to •be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthesaid land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was heldthat thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhasgot buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in nearfuture needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by 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 the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayer that the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the other appealsin these bunchof appeals.

¶14Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants,-it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of lA.App. Mo. ,1195/2008 & connccted Appeals of VillageBharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connectfidAppealsof Village Bijwasan ITV.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • ' Page13of29 urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Dattatmy Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra, 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 infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have . been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ot the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is • sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land Acquisition'Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence for 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 ReferenceCourt and whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai Lai vs. Union oj India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpa'i & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009).15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil 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 VillageBharthal IJV.App. No. 29'1/?,010 & connected Appeals of Village BIjwasan LA.App, No. :l1.X/?.010& connected AppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Page14 of29 and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeofthe 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-DetcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been-followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin Siishi!Kumar(supra)andRajSingh (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 minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on ] April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Smhil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor fiirtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so,'theimpugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReicrcnceCourt;whiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation 12% per annum and the same deserves Lo be broughtin line'while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. •

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe true marketvalue ofdie comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling ITV.App. No. 119S/2008& connnctfidAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectadAppealsof VillageIJIjwa.san lA.App. No. 11.1/2010a conneclKdAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 1.5 of 29 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands ' reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words;- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because ofits explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityof the acquired,landfor puttingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) possibilityof obtainingwater and electric supplyfor occupants ofbuildings 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 vicinity or close proximity ofthe acquired land;

(vi) bene:fits 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 acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify afew. " '

¶18I'he potentiality of land for the pu:pose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a Targe number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to, bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. No. 11135/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lA.App. No P.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan ' • . l7\.App.No.111/2010 & connecled Appeals of VillagePochanpur which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for deteiTnination 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 appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

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

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsrehedupon 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 acquired land 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 Kivan Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with advantage.

21., Apex Court in Valliyammai (Supra), while taking 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 development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App. No. 1.1.95/200.S& connccted Appeals of Village Bharlhal IA.App. IMo. 2<M/?,010& connectcid Appaals nf VillageBijwasan' LA.App. No. .1.1.1/201.0& conneciod Appealsof VillagePochanpur Page17 of 29 "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, will be c'onsidered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the m.a.rketprice. But where 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 accoimt of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to.. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinehing obsei-vations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakim Patil (Supra), which are as . follows;- "// is well settled that' genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons •acting in the normalmarketconditionsare the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principlesto determine'themarketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil ami -NaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin 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 developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts orjumps. lA.App. No. 1195/2008& connnctedAppRalsofVillageBharllVal ' ' ; i.A.App No. 2.94/2.010& connccted Appealsof VillageBijwasari l.A.App.No. 111/2'Oiaa connededAppealsofVillagePochar.pur . Page18 of 29 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 remote rural areas where there was no chance of. any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated f)r years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant diffef-ence 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%)per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence ofclear and specific, evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value byproviding appropriate escalation over the proved, market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no pyidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe yuhere the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even •^if it relates to a. neighbouring land: What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determining the m.arket value of a land, acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with, reference to a sale or lA.App. No. V.,')!)/200f!Si connnctsdAppealsofVillage.Bh'artha! • ' lyy.Apo. No. 29^/2010 & connnctHdAppealsof VlllagoBijwasan I.A.Ape No. 11.1/2030& connectfidAppealsofVillagePocnanp'.ii-Page 19of29 acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurtsinprices affectingthe verystandard ofincrease. "

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(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:- "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different siluationaladvantages)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 imiform.rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe 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., RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beds had purchased the agricultural land in Village Fochanpur at a price which varied from ^52 lacs to ^62 lacsper acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which arc basicallybetweenone set ol co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectof the compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 •Biswas situatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds lj\.App. No. 11.9!3/2008& connected Appealsof VillageBharthal I.A.App. IMo. 2!M/20.10&. connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan . . lA.App. No. 1..1.1/2030fi connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Page 20 of29 # (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereb}', the entire land of the sale exemplars—Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)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 acquiredlands in question. The (» special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~I/4to Ex.PW-l/lO)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agiiculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'' March, 2000 was also subjectmatter.in 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 Singh Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands.

¶27In 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 agriculturalpm-posetill their. acquisition; Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing l.A.App. No.1.195/2008& connected Appeals of VillageBharthal . • l-A.App.No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page21of29 •# 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 (]ix.PW-l/4 to lix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"' January,2000-, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Jix.P W-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

29., Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined 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 determ.ination of the market value of the acquired land yvith building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood lA.App. Mo. .ll'J!j/2008 & connerted Appeals of Village Bharthal I.A.App. No. 2'M/'.>.010& connocted Appnals of Village Bijwasan lA.App. No. .Ul/MlO & connected Appeals of.Village Pochanpiir Page 22 of2H or M'hetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land with building potentiality with reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped ' layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out what will be the price fetched or to befetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties, with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood.of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the actual use 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 increased value for such bidlding potentiality arises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate dem.and, as such, for building plots even ifformed in the acquired land." • '

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoption of rate of land charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to-rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chand-{S>u\-)V2i), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of IA.App. N()..ll')li/2008 & connccted Appeals of VillageBharthal l-A.App. No. 291/;?01.0& connoctnd Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No.313/Z0.1.0& connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question. - • 32. Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the c escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is talcen from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶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 of 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 Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis of sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate l7\.App. No. 119i)/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 3.9V2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan' l7\.App.No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur # escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears

¶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 unwan'anted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. Alter having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value V determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby 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 ofthe acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from.the date of fixatipnofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f T' 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 Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^'' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year1994the land use of the acquiredland had changedbut that by itself is not sufficientto lA.App. |\Jo. ll.q.'j/2dcs& conneclGdAppeiilsofVillageBharth;ii 17\.App.No. .:!(.M/2010&. co.nnoctadAppealsofVillageBIjwasan l-A.App. No. j.U/20.10&connnctRdAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 25 of29 V. presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami. Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquiied lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-l/ll)without leading any evidence,to establishthat the quality,and potentia.lityofthe sale exemplarsoiRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient giound to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in viev/ ot the albrc-referreddictum of-the Apex Court in Haryana State hidustnalDevelopmentCorporation (HSJDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded I lor the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum piice fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally,factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality, laking note of the fact that there is a gap between what I.A.A,op.Mo. 1195/2008&cnnnnctcdAppeaLsnfVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010& connecredAppcai?ofVillageBIjwasan lA.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • • ' ''• Pa'-ezeofzg y it 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 fmd no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38I'his 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 market value of the acquired lands in question. iMnding 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 fmd that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of 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 NIi-8 from Shiv Marti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing the 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 graint ,10% increase over arid 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 IVi.App. No. 119Ij/2C)08& connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appealsof VillageBijVi/asan ' ' IA.App. No; 1.11/2010& connectedAppealsofVillaijePochanpur Page 27of29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increaseinpriceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fait 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 assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Siishil (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account oi the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and above the marketvalue'assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof IA.App No. .1.1.9V2008&connncledAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App, No. 291/;.'010&conneclod'Appealsof VillageBijwasan • l.A,App.No. .1:1.1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthese three villagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perbJS^r the \-U Gatcgoiy 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per l^h?for the Category''B'" lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported ia Sunder vs. UOI .2001 (93) DLT 569 are ^granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ior \\1iichperiodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

42.' The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aloiesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar General ot this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb l-A.App. No. 1195/2008&connoclodAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App.No. 29^/2010&conncctedAppoalsofVillagGBIjwasan 1A.App. No. 111/20.10&cbnnocledAppealsofVillagePochanpur f Ov'- (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SI-IARMA 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.J^egiand Mr.H.S'.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. ; Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and I Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocates versus UNION OFINDIA& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mi".S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA, CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNILGAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. AppI. No. 752/2012 TFor correction). This is an applicationfor seddng typographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^''Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice \ LA.App.No.1195/2008 ^ Page1 ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typogiaphicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6^'^ January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants!Accordingly,this apphcationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'inparagraph no; 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be caitied out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb AApp.No. 1195/2008 IL GAUR) JUDGE Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November Oi^ 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012. + LA.APP. 31/2009 UOI Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate forDDA versus V.,' LAKHI RAM AND ORS Respondent Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepalc Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate ^ Mr.SandeepThakhur,Advocate ' V - 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