UOI v. Rishal Singh and Ors

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. I 195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. UR JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb 0 //0 . iN IHIE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELH[ Reserved on: iVovemher i , 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GR11iA) LA.i\PP. I 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BIAWIFHAL) RANBI I STIA RJVIA . Appellant I hrouah: Mr U.S .Maan, Mr. Amit Maati, Mr.Ja.i Prakash, Ms. Sm ita Maan, Mr. R.SXerma, Mr itin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohas, Advocate. Mr.Raghtnunder (.iodara, Advocate MrN .S.Negi and MrH.S.Rautela, Advocate N/irS. K.Roth and I\4r.B.K Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari. Advocates. Mr,Pankaj Vivei:, Au\.'ocale Mr.Rajesh Yada. l\'tr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Kliosla and Vir])hananjav 1\'irh1a.vat, .'\dvocates Mcii .S. i/.sutel, p d', d.utc Mr.l..S.Dahiya. Ad'c:a1a l\'lr.Sardeep '1 iui. Advocate I\4rAni! i'iir'ath Ad aOCaO/. N/it N S a. t CIIIi I' I 3 it (1 d , 1Ldf1 0)1 responden l in ap0ak..0led h UOt) U (1 versus LNION 0]' INDIA & ANR. ....i<esF•f)dcns I hinuch : i\4r.Sanjsv Poddar, SL iinr A d'ac . Pathals, Mr.l\'loiutrac .dcLhu wid / ai MS K aumtidi I &d\ Ud ( A J )j 1\'lr.2'\jav ' v erna, oecnashav Aol . 1\1r,l\/ ukcs.h JK.una.r 4r ¶..k c Liu \'1r. -'a'un l '/lathui. Ivl. K anal Sharm a. A dvOCat; f DD/\ A A 004 1/2008 &. (I'M No.4090/2008 (Cross-Ohections,. LA/iPO. 32/7000: .1 A:A.F 1P.453.'2c)u8: LA.APP.688/2 008 . CCI No.5990/2010 (&ros* ObiecAuns); I ,A.A J.09 7/2008 & CM .No.433/200u (Coss-Objcr t o ois) LAA0'P 701/2008 & C I N SI 0'(19 ((i ) ()t P /0',' i(n j 1 I' /7( L I/J\;p. No. 19,/Ts)25 ( coono:l pd i"ope;IIC of /iI!ig 3hr!h;.i A.Ai:o. No. 294/21):' (25 Appe-ils oV id: I)i:w.r, \.ipp. \ 2:1 I/Plo & ' Cr1,500 0 \/ C(2C Ioc;Jrp! C 1. I LA.APP.77 I /2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & 1• CM.No.61 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LAAPP.776/2008; LA.A.PP.777/2008; LA.AFP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.783/2008: LA.APP.784/2008; LA,APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.799/2008 & CM.No.93 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008: LA.APP.806/2008; LA.AP1 3.8 13/2008 & CM.No. 1 795/2009 (Cross-Objections): LAAPP.8 14/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.81 8/2008: LA.APP.8 1 9/2008; LA.APP.820!2008; LA.APP829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.83.3/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008: LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/20J 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); • LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/'2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections):. LAAPP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; L.A.APP,974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LAAPP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (CrossObjectioflS);LA.APP.993/2008 LA.A1P 1 029/2008& CM.No. 1 7340/2008 (Cross-ObjCCtiOnS) 1 AAPP. 1031/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (CrossObjections); 1 AAPP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (cross-Objections); LA.A1P. 1046/2008; I A.APP. I 047/2008;LA.APP. I 048/2008& M.No785 I /2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.4202009(CroSS-ObJectiofls); LA.APP. 1050/2008; I A.APP. 1051/2008 & CMNo. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LJ\APP. 1052/2008; LA.API. 1053/2008 & CM.No.41 6/2009 (Cross-Objections);LI-.APP. 1 054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. i055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 & CM.No.752/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No.1557/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.Nn. 1 7259/2008(Cross-OieCt1oflS) LA.APP. I 060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM..Nd.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP. 1 073/2008 LA.APP. 1 074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1 .A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1081 /2r08 & CM.No.462/2009(CVOSS-Ol)ec1101 • LA.APP. I 084/2008& CM.No.1 7302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP108:2008 & CM..No.244 8/2008 (Cross-Objections); I A;APP. I 087/2008& CM.NO61 9/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.APP: 1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; , LA.APP.1 103/2008 & CM.No441i'2009 (Cross-Objec.tioflS)i.AAP P.I 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I 109/2008: LA.APP.1 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP. 1111 i2008; I.AAPP. 11 12/208 & CM.No3 831/2009 (Cross-ObjectionS): LA..APP. 1112/2008 & CM.No.3826'2009 (( oss-Ohjlions) I A APP Ill '008 1 AP P Ill 6/2008 A APP I 1 '2008 '\APP 11 26i2008 L APP 11 2°/?00 & CM o 50/2009 Cro-Oj on A APP 1130/2008 1 A APP 11 i2008 H INO O6P0O9 (os Obii' t)(ih5) • A.APP.I I 33/200; LA.APP.1 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); • I A.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/20,08 Cross-Ol7jections); LA.APP.I 140/2008; • LA.APP. 1156/2008; LAAPP.1 1 57/2008; L.A.APP.1 158/2008 & CM.No.7774!2009 (Cross-Oblecti011S); LA.APP. 1159/2008; LA.APP. 1161.72008; LAAPP 1 1.66/2008; LA.APP.I 167/2008 & CM.No802/2009 (Cross-Objections) : LA.APP. 1168/2008; LA.APP.1 170/2008; LA.APP.I 171/2008; LA.APP.1 172.72008; LA.APP.I 17.3/2008; LA.APP. 11 75/2008; LA,APP. 1178/2008; L.A.APP. 11 9/2008; LA.APP. 1181 /2.008; I A APP I 182i2008 I A APP 11$ /20088 CM No 6933'2009 ( iuss-Objction1 • . I A.APP 1 184/2008; LA.APP.1 i85'200$; LA.APP. ii 86/2008& CM.No.701 3/7009 A.App. No. 95/20U8 ii connecled Appeals of Village Bharthal • LA Ape. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of \Jillage Bt v.iaSafl . • . . LA.App. No ,i /2O10 & connected Appea!s of Village Pochanoui • • Page 2 ol 29 . IA . (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1190/2008: LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 11 92/2008: LA.APP.1 193/2008; LA.APP.1 194/2008; LA.APP.1 195/2008; LA.APP.1 197/2008; LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.No.6935/2009( ross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 121 1/2008; 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. 124112008& CM.No.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections'); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. I 252/2908; 1 .A.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; I.A.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP. 1 283/2008; LA.AIP. 1284/2008; LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & . CM.No.953/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009: LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP.1 5/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; .LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP.1 38/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009;

1.A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; LA. APP. I 62/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009: 1.A.APP. 1 90/2009.,: I.A.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP. 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; L.APP. I 99/2009; LA.APP.201/2009; LA.APP.202/2009: LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No. 7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2 10/2009 & CM.No.970/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2 1/2009; LA.APP220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227./2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.24 1/2009; LA.APP.245,12009; LAAPP.24612009; LA.APP.249/2009; L.AAPP.257/2009; LAAPP295/2009; LA.APP.305i'2009; iA.APJ..367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.J-\PP.447/2009; LA.APP458/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP481/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; i.A.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.494i'2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009: LAAPP.506/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009: LA..APP.51 0/2009: LA.APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP.5 12/2009: LA.APP.3 I 3/2009; LA.AFP.567/2009; I PP 572/2009 IA APP 15i2010 LAPP 45/2010 1 AAPP4S/2010 .A.APP.404/201 0; LA.APP. 13/2011: LA:APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP.1 1 76/2008; LA.APP.1 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/200$: LA.APP23 1/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.l0(30)/96/I& B/LA/13417 dated 1112.2000 issued under Section 4 of the 1.aj.d Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Vi1iag Bharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08, 201.1 !iii06,2C/2 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BIJWASAN).

i)i/.VLNDLR 1K.UM.AR 'ihro ugh f.App, No U95/?008 & connected Appetils of Vflage BhrtItaI it App No. 294/2010 & connected Appeds of ViPge Bijwastit A.App No 11/2010 & connected Appetds of Village Pnchnpu Appellant 1\4r.R. S,i'onlar. 1\'lIir.Vireridra Singh I'ttge 3 of 29 LA.APP. 52/20 10 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 I A APP 47/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 2&7/2010 LA.APR 295/2010 LA.A.PP. 1346/2010 iA.APJ?. 350/2010 LA.APP. 354/20l0 LA.APP: 365/2010 LA.APP 360/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 J.A.APP. 4(9,'7010 LA.APP. 723/2010 iA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010

1.A.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 75/2010 & S . A (1 'ocates Mr.S.J<. Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and M.r.B K. Routrry. Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR . Respondents Through: Mr.Snjay Podclar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Saijay Kumar Pathak, Mr .Mohitrao Jadhav. and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for Li Ol/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appea1s filed by UOI 1\4r.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UO1 Mr flanke Bihar Sharma, 1\'ir.Kuna.! Shanna and Mr. Sorner K. Seth, Advocates for DDA. J.AAPP. 1/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/20 10 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010

1.A.APP. 288/201.0 LJA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/201.0 LA.APP. 34712C10 i.A.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.AP.P .352/2010 LA.APP. 356/2.01(11 LA.APL. 357/2010 LA.APP. 742/2W0. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 361/2030 LA.APP.:362/201.0 LA.APP. 406/201.0 L..A.APP. 407/2.010 LA.A1P. 438/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 724i'201 0 1 AAPP. 725/2010 LA.A1P. 729/2(31 0 LA.APP. 731/20] 0 LA.APF. 759/2010 /A.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 C.MNo. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 55.'20]0 LA.APP. 70/201 0 LA.APP. 226/7010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LAAPP. 345/20 10 LA.APP. 349/201 0 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA..A.PP. 359/201 0 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 722/20.10 LA.APP. 726,•'20,!0 LA.APP. 732/20110 LA.APP. 828/2010 & (Relating to Notification No. F. 1 0(30)96-L& B/LA/i 3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Ac9uisit,ion Act, 1 894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AN]) P,App. No 1195/2008 & corirocted Appoads of VUsgn Bhr1hsi LA,App. No. 2942OiO & connoctod 4ppes!s of Viliage Bijw5san i\ App. No. I 11/7011) & connectcd Appools of Village Pocbanpui 'age 4 of 29 (GRiD-C) Reserved on: Dmj2O1i Pronounced on: JanuaiQ2OJ2 LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCllANPU]l) . Appellants Mr.J3.JJ, Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates 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.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) Respondents i\4r.Sanjay Podclar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohii:rao Jadhav, and Ms.Navljri Swain. Advocates for VOI/I.AC .Mr.Bankev Bi han Sharrna, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr. Somer K. Seth, Advocates DDA. SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through versus UNiON OF' INDIA & ANR Through . LA.APP. 111/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 254/2010 LA.APP. 292/201 0 LA.APP. 307/2010 LA.APP. 395/2010 LA APP. 420/2010 LA.APP. 466/2010 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.APP. 767/201 0 J.A,AiP. 919/2010 LA.APP. 65/2011 1AAPP. 120/2011 L'\.APP. 476/2011 LA.APP .523/201 1 LA.APP. 536/2011 LA.AP1. 154/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 317/2010 LA.APP. 396/2010 LA.APP. 432i201 0 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 639/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LA.API'. 1 052'20 1 0 LA APP. 116/2011 LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.APP 485./2011 1A.APP. 525/2011 LA.APP. 554/20J 1 LA.APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 LA.APP. 261/2010 LA.I-\PP. 305/2010 LA.APP. 392/2010 L.A.APP. 397/2010 LAAPP. 433/2010 LA.APP. 577/2010 LA.APP. 640/2010 LA ..APi:) . 741/2010 Lk.APP. 784/2010 LAAPP. 61/2011 LA.A.PP. 117/2011 LA.APP. 129/201 L.A APP. 521/2011 LA. APP .526/201 1 LA.APP. 591/201 1 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP. 21 5/2010 LA APP. 25 0/2010 LA.APP. 270/201 0 LA.AP]. 306/2010 LA.AP1. 39320i0 LA.APP. 412/2010 LA.APP. 434/2010 LA.APP. 635/2010 LA APP. 657/201 0 LA.APP. 75:/2Ql0 '.A A1P 9l:/20i0 LA.APP; 64/201 1 LA.APP. 119/2011 LA.APP. 420/2011 LA.APP. 522'201 I LA.APP. 535'201 I .f.App. No. 3.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal i.A.Apo. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan .r .pp No 311/7010 11 connected Appeals of Village PochSnpLrr Pa ge 5 of 29 . /7 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

3.l2.200O issued under Section 4 of tiie Land Acquisition Act, 1894 &: Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pocli.anpur, Delhi) CORAM: HONB1LE MR. JUSTICE SUN1L GAUR ORDER 06ML2012 Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought. by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical therefore with the cOnsent of learned 'counsel •for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to A'oti/lcation No.F. 10(30,)96-L& 13/1.4/1.34] 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Biiwasan 'and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

¶2Acquisition process for planned development of Dwarka Phase-17' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of IVoti/ication of 13d December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, I 894. pertaining to vast tract of agricuilural land. in OflC compact block . ' comprising of thirteen Revenue 1/states inciudng villages in question, i.e., l3hartha], i3ijwasan and Pochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the ah.'resaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Avard No.28/2002-2003 ;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation

13.82 lacs per acre for Block A' (level field with top soil) and i2.32 ]acs per acre

1.3 lock 'B' (without top soil)

¶4Dissatisfied with the assessment ol market value of their acquired. .1 . . App. No. i19/2OO8 & donnected Appeals of Village Bharthal App. No. ?.9 i/2OiO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A App. No.. 1 1/2oiO & connected Appeals of Village Pochnptir .. •1 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 1 8 of• the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the .Reirence Coui vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation

15.00 lacs pei acre for the appellants' acquircd 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 JExecuth'e Engineer ICarnataku Housing Board vs. Land AcquLition Officer 9 Gadag and Ors, (2011) 2 SCC 246; AnjaniikMu Dessai vs. State of Gao wadAnr,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh Rain and Ors vs. Si/ate ofilaryami andAnr, (2,0 1 0) 1 SCC 444; Sangunth ala (Dead) through LRs Vs Special Tehsildar (LandAcquisitio& & Ors (2010) . 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Siagh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; chindha Fakira Patil (D, through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jo(gwa, . 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Raina A/and (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India & Ainr, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Doss vs. State of' Harl'ano & 'Ors, 2010(9) SCALE .41; Chaka vs. Ste of Punjab & O?S, 9 201] (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Aai1 vsi tote of Ma! roshi/ro, (2009) 11 SCC 1 7 1; Atma Singh (Deod) through LRs and Ors vs. Stare of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P. No, 4143/2003 htled as Smt. indu Khorana vs. Gram Sahhti & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisjtion Officer & Anr vs. MJ(. Rafiq Saheb, (20].]). 7 SCC 71 4; Thakarsihhai De\l'jibhai and. ors vs. Executive Ençineer, J\ . /\pp. No. .1 IV!)I2008 & connected AppeiIs of V!Ilage 3hartha .A.App. No. 294/20.10 &• connected Appeals of Village Bjwasan AApp. No 1.] 1/2010 connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . Gu/arat and Anr., AiR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development coiporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risa! Singh & Ors Vs. Union a/india & Anr, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Chand VS. Union of India and Anr, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil nd iVatural Gas Gorporation Ltd vc, Rarneshhhai Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyainmal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr,, AIR 2011 SC 2937; K/ran landau vs. Allaluihad Development Authorifli, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatra; ' Thirthka vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SC 2238; • Iapil Mehra (Ma/or General) & Ors, Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 W.P.( No. 1284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr, decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prahash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 5CC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) Ii SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs Union of India, decided on 07.06.2011; and. Rhule Ram vs. Union of india, 201(1

(170)ILT 371.

¶6On the strength, of the aibresaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan. learned arguing counsel fdr the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudged keeping in viw the development in the area o'er a period of time and the same cannot be limited to tho near future alone. 7 [t was pointed out by M.r.R.STcmar, counsel ibr appellants that Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage rai vay lIne of Village Biijwäsan passes through the land of Village B.harthal, dividing ii into two parts, i.c, oft the eastern side of the railway line is the 1(11 Airport, New Delhi LA App. No. 11 tV2OOg & connected Appeals of Village Bhar1hal tA.App. No.298/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village [tijwasan . and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards I)warka Sub-City Part-I and Part-Il 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 liouses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, I3ijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal wa first acquired for the extension of Jul Airport in the year 1971 and again in the 'year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereacr 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 szras/map to highlight that the boundary ot Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village i)hool Siras are contiguoUs.

¶8It was strenuously' urged by Mr.B.S.IVlaan, 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 1601 October, 2000 'id.e which land use of the three village in question was changed from agricultura! to residenti au commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthai had c ased to he i ui a] in ie of the Nol c ition ol 24' Oci oei, I Q94

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aftresaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by •the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama /.App, No. lA ys/looN & connected Appeals of Village Bharthäl A App.. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeslc of Village Bijwasan ."App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 9 of Z9 Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderahad & Ors, (l99) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Hwyana & Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must he adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot he limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not pul Lhe land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality. 1 0. Reliance was placed b y Mr.13.DSharma learned counsel br the . appellants upon the seven Sale 1)eeds of Village Pochanpur to highjight that the sale price reflected therein varied rfron/ 52 lacs to 62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot he thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because oF any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in .Anjiwi IWo/u Dessai vs. State f Goa udAnr., (2010) 13 5CC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to he taken as representing the market price oF the land which COmeS to 57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, thereibre, reliance placed by the Refrcnec Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates fOr deterrriining the market value of th acquired land is patently erroneous. 1 1. Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel •for the ap)lJa.its on the basis of the L& IX) rates Lxed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-det.crni med rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in 'iew the location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is I . LI.,pp. No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeak of Village Bharthal No. 294/201.0 & conhlN:ted AppeaR ol Village Bijwsan No. rll/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Pepe 10 ol 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 (PI)R.$) as referred to above. 1 2. In the written synopsis, appellant Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- ct) 7çnores the ac!novvleclgemeni on [he part of the respondent about the Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated . 23. 102002 being flawed in the course of the pioeeedngs Civil Writ petit ion No. 19012 of 2006. (Reftrred to in cross-examination of appellant dated

7.7.200J) • /i) Does not account /br the thci that the Public Notice dated 18.9. 1987 adversely ajfcied the rates. of land in the circa for more than 15 years before the Notflcation wider Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was Lssuecl. c) Valuing' the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued lxv the Government of Natzonal Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by viirious decisions including one of the mare / ' recent decisions of the lion 'h/c Supreme Court in Sangunt ha/a versus Tahsildar, 2010(3) 8CC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other fdctors which as per established law has to he con. ictereci hej'Ore ascertciinin the value of the land i.nder acquAllion. e) Does not deal with d/spciriiv 'ifl value of the Sale Deeds i7loduced befOre the trial Court whereas as per the lal1' established by the Hon 'h/c Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakirct Pat/i versus Special Land Acqutsition Officer, Civil Apeal No.54/S of 2007. The • lion 'h/c Supreiie Court has spec i/ically held that Sale • Deed showing higher rate shoznd not he disregarded in LA.AD. No .1195/2008 & connected Appools of Vifla8e Bhrth0 LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connccted Appeis of Vi&4c 0ijwasm LA.Aop. No, 1.11/2010 & connected AppeIs ol ViIIge Pochan p ur Papa 11 of Z I 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) I?eiied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LIIC No.9 7A/2 006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the maler fat which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ]3,36,000 inBlock B in violation the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Suhh Rain vs. State of ilarvana 2010(1) 8CC 444 As a consequence, th impugned judgment refused to return an actual jinding on the issue No.] amed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although v/dc .IVotijlcation of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhooi Siras and Bharthaf was changed and these areas ceased to he agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries f Delhi .Siate. The masterpian and ot/icatons 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 mentlon that the ap/.7eiiant lead evidence in respect of the 74I amendment at the Constitutic'n of India. u.e./ 1.6. 1993 IX ci, by virtue of which the Municipa1 Coiporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected om there.. No Pancho yat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply theta Ti' laid down in All? Supreme Court 347, Ranvir Sii'igh. and ,lur vs. Union of India and refused to consider the fict iliat the development in the area has a direct e/Jèci.c n the j7i'/ce that a willing purchaser would pay far the. suI7p/ct thud.

i) .lçnored the fuct that I? spoudent No. 2 had also ;.A.ispp. No. 1.195/2008 & connecled Appeals of V2lage l3harthal LA.App. No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village E3iiwasan :.Ap p . No. .111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur 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. .1) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the 1ire-determned 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 o/ Dwarka Phase II. it is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhooi Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to he agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. 1) ignored Notifications dated 16. 10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. in San gunihala v. Tahsi/dar

(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 ii was held that the purpose for whicli land is acquired! is a relevant factor. 'While determining value of the property acquired the /hct whether the land has got building otentiaht). to he used for building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered.

iii) 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 ianc/ • were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters As a portion oft/ic land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near future.

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have been provided With a prayer tha.t the appellants of this appeal he treated at par with the. co-appel1ant of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Ana.nd Yadav, Advocate that the effect of A App. No. 195'2003 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A PP. No. 294/2010 & conilected Appeals of Vi!laige Bijsvasnin .A.Ao. No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 13 0129 urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dab/ray Thirthkar vs. Sita/e of Ma/thrash/ra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major Genera!) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 1.76(2011) DLI 361 and that Pre-l.)ctermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and. infact the sale instances relied upon by the appl1ants are comparable and ought to have bean 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 soughi in these appeals.

¶15/\rguing the crossobjections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged thatthough as per Section 51-A of Land Acquisition Aci 1894, a certified cop y of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same caniot 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 cic. are also required to he considered and the sale instances relied, upon by t1c Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in i/elLa! v. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 2.27, Sapai & Ors vs. f/ekni of' India, (1997) ii SCC 423; La! Ghand vs. Union of India and .A1nr9

(2009)15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 hUed as Sushi! Kumur i's; Union of india, decided on 26.092011, 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 b y producing in evidence the seller LA.APP No. 1195/2008 & connected 4ppeIs of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Vifla p,e Bijw,san .A.App, No. rIl1/2,0].0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Osge 14 of 29 S S I and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swain! Salsang, I3eas, relied upon by the appellants, hut for special consideratjoi. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& 1)0 rates/Pre-I)etermjned Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lal Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sush/! Kuthar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶6So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by • Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Responderits/cross objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as JSf April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the ac quired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court. as in Swthil Kunwr (supra) appreciation @ lO% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for ftirther enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed b the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting ti-ic enhancement by the Reference Court while taking into consideration the appreciation (/ 1 2% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation 1 0% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-.. objections to the aforesaid extent. 1 7. ifler considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the irnpugnedjud gmeni the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to a willing LA.App. No. 119I2Q08 & connected Appeals of Village [3harth:sl /\pp. No. 294/2010 & connoctc'd Appeals of ViUage fijwasdn Lf\.App. No. 11/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 15 o129 I seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Doss vs. Stale of Haryano & Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- '(1 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 comm.ercal. industrial, educational, religioz.is or any other kind of importance or because of its expios l ye population;

(ii) the suitability of the acquired land/or putting lip the buildings, be they i"esicientiai, commercial or industiial, as the case may be;

(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply/hr occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;

(iv) absence of stat utory impediments or the like fbr using the acquired land/hr building purpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed res dential extensions in the vicinity or close prox1mty oft/ic 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 occupiei;s of buildings, f built on the acquired land; and (vii,) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand ,/hr building purposes, to specify a few.

¶18'Ihe potentiality of land for the pumoosc of development as also for building purposes depends upo1. a large iumbcr of fctors. For the said purpoSe, the Court may not only have to hear in n.ind [he purpose fhr A pp . No .1.195/7008 & connected Appeals of vilage Bharthal LA.pp. No. 794/2010 & connected Appeals 0 Villsge Eiijwassn t .Aop. No. 511/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . ," I .5 which the lands were sought to he acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avtnash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land relied upoti by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. 1 9. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MK. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 71 4. The 1gal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarl y 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 propositioi of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired th 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 pronosition, the decisiOn of the Apex Coun in K/ran Tandon (Supra) car he referred to with advantage. 21 . Apex Court in Valliyanunal (Supral. while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of reidential ColOfliCS, 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 Mo/u Dessal (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under: A/pp. No. 11.05/2008 & coririeced Appeals of Village Oharths A/ p p. No. 294/2010 & /onneced Appeals of Vil!age Bijwasan L..AJO. No. 1.. 11/2010 & connected Appeils of Village Pochanpur "The legal position is that: even where ihere are several exemplars with reference to sim i/ar lands, usually the highest of' the exemplars, which. is a hona ftc/c transaction, wi/i he considered. Where however thee are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. 13w where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly difflrent, it can only lead to an inference that they are with refrrence to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot he resorted to.

¶22lIt would he worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in. Chindha Fakira Paul (Supra), which are as folio ws - "It is well settled that genuine and hona fide sale transactions in respect of the /aid under acquisition o1 .in its absence the honafide sale tretsactions 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 iesonah/e prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value.

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC (Supra), are as under:- "PrImarIly, the increase in land prices depends on four frictors - sithation of the land, nature of development in surrounding circa, avatlabiiiti.' f land Jar development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. in rural areas unless there is ally prospect of development in the vicinit, increase in prices would he slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. A.App. No. 1195/2006 & connected Appeals of Via1ge Bhsrtted A.Ap9 No. 294/2010 & connected ppesls of Village Bijwassri LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Villege Pocharpur S On the other hanc in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand fbr land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is tit 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 deveiof7meflt and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated fOr years or rose marginally cit a nominal rate of 1 % or 2% per annum. There is thus a sign ificant cifferenc in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban . cireas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore lf the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, • the corresponding increases in rural aieas would at best be only around half of ii, thai is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb reffrs to the general trend in the nineties, to he adopted in the absence of clear and specfIc evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are • special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any spec/Ic evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to he applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the. mode of determining the market value by proviaing approciriate escalation over the proved.market value 0! necirby lands in prevlous years (as evidenced by sale iransaclions or accjuisiiion2 , where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the 'eighbqurhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the . ra'icJ-on-saie transactions/acquisitions precedes the sub fec! acquisition by only a few yeais, that is tiplo tour tü five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it re/airs to a neighbouring lam-id What may he ci i-c!icibles tcinclard if the gap is Onl)' a few years, may become nI2Safe and un.rehahie standard where the gap is lccrger. ,bor example. fOr determining the market value of a land accjuii'rc-t. in 1992, ac/opting the annual increase method u/u-i reference to ci sale or '.App. NO. I 195;20C)P & connected Appeals of Village Bhartha 'Ape. NO. 29 fl/O1Q & cor.nected Appeals of Village Bliwasan No, 11.5/2010 & c000eced AppeaR of Village PochanOor Page 19 ot L9 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'raie of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence ojvarymgperzods u/stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard u/increase.

24.. This Court is mindful of the dictum. of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development corporailbn (HSIDGj (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales mcthods What was said by the Apex Court in J-ISTDC (Supi-a) is as under:- . '14/hen different categories of lands (or lands with dlfferent si/national advantages) are cicquiredfàr the same purpose, sai. for /dsming of a residential layout, courts have sometImes felt that determination of their value with refCrence to previous status or situation should he avoided and a uniform rate of compensation should he awarded for all lands acquired under the same notifIcation.

¶25Tjndisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired and of Village Bharthal., Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious iflStJtutio.n, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, fleas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Po.chanpur at a price which varied from 52 lacs to 62 lacs per acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex....W-1/4 to hx.PW-1/] 0) which are basically between one set of co-owners and 1?adha Swami Satsang, fleas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 1 8 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value cf the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required to he answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds Aipp. No. 1195/2008 & Connected Appeals of Village ltharthal A App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals o Village Bijwasan A.Aeo, No. 1:1 1/200 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 20 ol 29 I U S (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-l/l0) indicate that its price varies from 52 lacs to 62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars - Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex,PW-l/l0) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of 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 he treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pocharipur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW--l./4 to Ex.PW-1/i0) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendce of these agricultural land has riot been got examined by the appellants. Fiad the purciiaser/vendee olthe aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special •fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale I)eed executed on 2:Stul March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Sing/i s. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Sthg/i rs. Union [ India, decided On

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village .M.amurpur 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 acquied lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence tha.t the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent pci-son having knowledge of prevailing LA,App. No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Ilharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page.21 of 29 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 (iix.PW-1 /4 to Ex.PW-l/l0) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So •far as the sale exemplar of Vi]lageSamalkha (Ex.PW-1/i 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,l724l per acre relating to Sale Deed of 27hh1 January, 2000, it needs to he noted that because this hale exemplar (l:ix.PW-]/1 i) wa.s situated on the National 1-Iighway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-l/l 1) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefiDre, 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.

1.eit 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& 1)0 circular rates for the developed lands and Pre LDctermined Rates for the alternate plots by the DI).A ought to be adopted to determine the true matket value of' the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fxaiion of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors, v. Lund Acquisition Officer H'derahod Urban Development Autlwri4 .Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-

¶12however, in either of the said cases whether it be. the determination of the market value of the accjuired land with hit//ding potenticility wtth ref bvence to the price Jbtched by sale of plots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood /.App. No. no;/2ooN i;onnocted Appoals of Vi}Ipe Bhrth,l App. No. 29 4/1.010 & connectod Appeals of Village lfijwasan AApp No. 11.11.010 & OflflCCCtCCd Appeals of ViIJ.lgo p ochdnptir Page 22 of 2.Y or wheti er ii he the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the p1-ice fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable far the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to hefètched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the pal-lies, with reference to the price whzch the plots could have fetched if sold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence of price 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 to find out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant dale of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put cind inc-ease its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 1/5th of the market value of the land found oul according to its actual user since resort to the method of gi1;i1g increased value for such buidng potentIality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of building plots i the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, /dr building plots even if farmed in the acquired land. In \'ieW of the difficulties ij. adoption of rate of land charged by ffie DDA after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! ('hand (Supra, held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment ratcs/PreDetcrj.ninecI Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Foflowing the dictum of La! ('band (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kurnar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value cf .\,i.p. No. 190/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BhartiCal :.p, No. 291/2010 & connec;ed Appeals of Village Bijwasan • •t.t. NC). 11.1/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur S .55 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the I)DA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Prc-I)etermined Rates for alternate a]lotments •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 aid other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-i. It was sought to he argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector thai; even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 1 0% per annum is taken from the year 1 984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-i and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-Il, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is mote than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforcsiid argument does not ho].d gooc in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in .Lal Cliand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment ofthe market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may he 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 Dwirl<a Phase-Il is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market Value by providin.g appropriate A.App. No. 11 9/2OO8 & connected i\ppeals of Village l3harthal - Lf\.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L/\.App. No. 1.11/29w & connected Appeals of Village Poclianpur .. . .. escalation over the market value 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 Sushi! Kurnar (Supra), has granted escalation @ I O% per annum. After having perused the decision n Sushi! Kunuir (Supra), I find that 1 0% increase on account of higher potentaIity of the acqiiired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying pon Sushi! Junwr (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court c2 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 1 0°/o per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-object lons of the respondent al-c dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price o .f the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining Lhe market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted h the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. 1S1 April. 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to he further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in quc.stio.n has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had cdased to be an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 24h1t October, 1.994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urha. It is true that vide aforesaid NotiJicaton of the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed but that by itse.l [is not sufficient to A.App. No. 1195/2002, & connected /\ppeok ol VWage 3IirUiai A.App. No. 21)4/2010 & connected Appeels of Village Bijwasan LA.I\pp. No. 1 1.1/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur • presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development h and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Salsang, J3eas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the J.and Acquisition Act, 1 894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. i-lad there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account of potential ty of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samalltha (J.ix.PW-i/l 1) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Scilsang, l3eas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-l/i 1) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (lix. PW-1/1 1) cannot be treated to he sufficient ground to grant higher compensation while rclvwg upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in \ucw of th.e af ore-referred dictum of the Apex Court in Haryctna State industrial Development torporwEwn (IISJDC (S upra), uniform rate of Corn pensatiOn deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land in Delhi. which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what 2Io.-1195/2Qg & connected AppeIs of ViUge BhrthJ L.'5 .A p r. No. 294/2010 & connected AppenIe of Village Bijwasan App No. 111/20.10 & connected AtJPOaIS of Village Pochanpun • Pae 26 of 29 would he expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's mhtimurn agricultural price has been held. to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Sing/i (Supra) as "veil as in Sushi! Kurnar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jul Sing/i (Supra) and Sushi! Kurnar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price •for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matterof Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar tc sale exemplars is borne outfron the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity ot the 161 Airport., Indian. Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 1 00 meters vide oad starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part 1 and Part Ii, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity ol the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aloresai d 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 iO4 increase over and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed b y the. Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquiied lands is the A App. No; 1 1.95/2[X)8 & coilnected Appedis of Village Bharthjl .App. No. 294/2010 & connected AppeiJs of V2lage ttijwasCn f;.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochar.pur Page 27 oI 29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Naush erH'an K/urn vs. Collector, (1975)1 SC C 238, ii these words:-. "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality.

¶39Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of th.e fact that exactness can never he achieved in the matters of assessing Ibir compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices !o.r the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. TIowever, while rel ying upon the decision in Sushil Kuinar (Supra), 1 am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands cletejmin.ed by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the afresaid locational advantages proicling a higher building potenuali .y in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding 1 O% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village .J3ijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Fochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bi.jwasan, the appeals of lt/pp No. .11 95/2003 & connected Appesds of Village t3hrthul lJ\epp. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A/ p p. No. 1.1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Poclianpur 4/4 V the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined l6,50,000/- per bi.gh fbr the C Category land and i4,69,600/- per higha for the Category 'B' lands in question. i'\ 4 1. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, sLatutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judurneni reported in. Sunder vs. (101 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted. except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for \vhich Period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall. he paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either hide with the Registrar Genera] of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets he accordingly prepared. - (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Jamiary 06, 2012 P 1< b !J . - •• .A.A p p. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofViliEige Bharthd LA./\pp No. 294/7.010 & connected Appeak of V8Ige Bijwsn

¶1App. No. 111/20.10 & connected Appeais of Vifiage Pochnpur Pige 29 o129 . - ii IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B . S .Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.egi and Mr.H:S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.RoutraY, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and MrH.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tornar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S .K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi Ms. Arnita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunai Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTiCE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 12M1.2012 C0M ApjN 752L2O1 (For corrçO1I1). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6th January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the nìotice LA.App.No 1195/2008 Page 1 H of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6fh January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of they aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is iot disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.AppNo. 1195/2008. be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried ut forthwith. In view of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. -. 1cUN!L GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 12, 2012 pkh LAApp.No. 1195/2 008 Page 2

r) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November/. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 I LA.APP. 1202/2008 UOl Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran. Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kurnar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA versus RISHAL SJNGH ANI) 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.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Sarnit Khosia and Mr.Dhananjay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate • Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR