Ram Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs..Union of. India & Anr. GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06,2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 1•• • • : m THE HIGH COURT Of DELHI AT T "'a . , ; Reservedon: NovemberIS, 2011 ' Pronounced.on: Januarv 06, 2012 ;|i • : "••• : i •; (GRID-A) i •: i LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBJR SHARMA , . i Appellant fhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.SA'erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas,! Advocate. Mr.Raghvivinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari. Advocates.; Mr'.Pankaj iVivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav. Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.]3hananjay MehlaAvat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Raiiteku Advocate Mr.r.S.Dahii'a, Advocalc Mr.Sandeep Thakiiur. A.d\'ocate Mr.Atul iTipathivAdvocate. Mr.N.S.Negi -and Mr.H.S.Raulela, (Advocates for respondent,in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA& ANR. ! .....Respondents' Through: Mr.SanyayPoddar, Senior AdA'ocatewith Mr.Saa|iiy Pathak., Mr:Moh.itrao, .ladha'v and Ms.Navlin Swain. Ms-.K.Kaiimudi• Kiran. Advocates for LAC/UOI, Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.i3ecnashaw;Soni. Mr.Mukcsh Kumar, Mr;S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pav>(anJvlathirr, IVir.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA ', !,A.APP.412/2008 & CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections). LA.APP..452/2008; LA.APP.4fi3/2008;LA.APP.688/2008 •% a.lMo.5990/2010 (Cross-Objeclions); LA.APJ'.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.7()i'/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-OWections): L APP.768/2008; [.A.APP.770/2008; l-A.A;?p. K'o. liy!j/r;008 & cofinccled Appnals of Villiigi;Bhi;ir!.hyl i •v.Ado. No./94/:'0;i0 S comiuc'ed AppoaLsnf-village Biiwy;,on i'I'-App. 'V'J. i:l & connraed Appc:i:sof Viilafjc:Pochanpiir Pafjc i, oi 29 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objeclions);LA..APP.774/2008& CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM No 615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.l795/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP'.S18/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA APP.829/2008; LA.APP.83q/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.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.1n1o.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);L/V.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.993/2b08;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.l7340/2008 (Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.103r/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.5:99/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1046/2008; l.,A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008&CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP,1050/2008; LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No.17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LyN..APP.1052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008& CM.No.4l6/2009(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); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 &"CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections); l.,.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008•& •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); I.A APP 1084/2008&' CM.No.17302/2008 (O-oss-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.l103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l108/2008 & CM No 3839/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l109/2008; LA.APP.l110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objecttons);.LA.APP.l111/2008; LA.APP.l112/2008& CM No.3831/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l113/2008 & 'CM..No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l11.5/2008; LA.APP.l116/2008; LA.APP.l121/2008; lA.APP.1126/2008;LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objeclions); LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & Clyl.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections): LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP.l156/2008;LA.APP.l157/2008;LA.APP.l158/2008& CM.No.7774'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l16172008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.LL70/2008;LA.APP.LL7L/2008;LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.1123^2008; . LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.1179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM:.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections); lA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.l185/2008; LA.APP.L186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 IA,App. No.:i195/2008 & connficted Appeal.^of VillageBharlhal LA App. No. Z9'i/2010& connected Appealsof VillageBIjvvasan ' . . , LA.App. No. .1.1 l./.'iniO& connncledAppeal.sofVillage PochaiiDur' Page ?. o! 23 (Cross-Objcctions);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-Objectio!iis);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.124I/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP."l276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.128il/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33a009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 l.A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/20] 1

1.A.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.224,/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.y\PP,230/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24l/2009; LA..APP.245./2009 LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; l.A.APl^404/2010;' LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA,APP,495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; I,.A.APP.295/2009 LA.APP.447/2009 LA.APP.480/2009 LA.APP.491/2009 LA.APP.503/2009 LA.APP.509/200' LA.APP.513/2009 LA.APP.45/2010 .A.APP. 1138/2008 l./V.APP.l177/2008;LA.APP.120i/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM,No.7027,/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 L A. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA,APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 (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 Mo. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002; Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December OS. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 I.A.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE:- BIJWASAN). DEVENDER KUMAR : Appellant Through: | .Mr.R,S,'.romar,Mr.VirendraSingh l/'.App, No .1]9;;/Z00S & coiinectcd Appnals of Village Bharlhal IA,App, No. 2fM/2010& conncctcdAppealsof Village Bijwasah 1A.App No, ,1.1.1/7.010& connected Appeal.';of VillagePochanpur Pago 3 of 29 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 UOI & ANR l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. [.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010

56./2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate Avith ! Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao ^ Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forDOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.BankeyBihar Sharraa, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. Lr/2010 , LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 24:6/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 35:1/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 • LA.APP. 43:8/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 8072010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA..\PP. 289/2010 lA.A??. 313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP, 357/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA..APP. 362/2010 LA.y\PP. 407/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 l.A,.4P?, 725/2010 LA,APP, 73L/2010 LA,.W, 764/2010 .LA,APP, 364/2010 LA,APP. 99/2010 •oss-objections) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, I..A.APP, LA, APP, .LA.APP. & 51/2010 55,'2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726/2010 732,/2010 828/2010 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/134L7 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) :AND K.'X.App. No. .119r)/2008& connectfidAppealsof VillageBharthial lA.App. No. zg/i/'/OlO & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan i./\.App. No. 11j/.'?010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . Pago 4 of 7.9 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December J8, 2011 Bronounced on: January 06. 2012 J.A.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. 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.RajeshYadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr San jay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain.. Advocates for IJOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DBA. LA.APP. LA.A??. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 '660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011 LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA../VPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.7\PP. LA.APP. L/V.APP. LA..APP. LA..4PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP, LA.APP, LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429,/2011 522/2011 535/2011 I.A.App. No. J1.95/2008& connoclodAppeal.';ofVillageBharthal ' LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ; LA.App No : .1.1/2010& connectedAppealsofVlllasePochanpur.' (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

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

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on ^A(hicb enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in, these bunch of appeals arc identical, thereiore with the consent of;learnedcounsel for the parties present at the hearing o[ these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoUficationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/JA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare being disposedof by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planned developmentof 'DwarkaPhase-II' in Delhi, commenced with the issumca oi Notification of 13"'' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact bloclc comprisingof thirteen Revenue Instates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,BijwasanandPochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of thd appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., y\ward No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward , No.30/2002-2003granting compensation ?13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @ ^12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil). ; '

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue ofthcii-acquired LA.App. No. 119i)/2008& connRctedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal.; l.A.App. No. & connnctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan \ 'A.App. No. 111/7.01.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur! Page 6of 29 \J . • • : agriculturallands, appellants:hadsought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt vide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the ! appellants'acquired land in Block 'A' and @C13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave beendismissed.

¶5In these appeals,furtherenhancementof compensationsoughtby the appellants-ofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees > I Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of RjupeesThiny lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Anr,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Fs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition)& Ors,, (2010)3 See 661; RanvirSingh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs w. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased), through LRs vs. Union of India & 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) SCALI^ 362; Avinash' Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) I 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SeC 568; W.P.(e) No, 4143/2003 titled as Smt Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabhci d Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer ^ -Anr M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsibhai fffvjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, lA.App. No. .U!?;)/?008 fi connocted Appeals of Village Sharthai ;.A.App. No. 7.y't/?,0.10& connected Appeals of Village Bljwasarii iA.App. No in/ZOlO & connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur ' • ' • PaBe7of29 Gujarat and Am\, AIR 20,01 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15-, RisalSingh & Ors, Fx Union ofIndia & Ann, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs:Union of India and Anr,, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil ami Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshhhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Am w. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Am-:, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs, Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Ks. Union of India Anr, 176(20]]) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead) by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997)'11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushif.Kumarvs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59i/2007 titled-as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;:and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371. :

¶6On the strength of the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants-that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near iliturealone.

¶7It was pointed out'by Mr.R.S.7omar, counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village pjharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on-theeasternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi l-/\.App,No. Il3?/200a & coiineclGclAppealsofVillage Bhariha! IA,/>.pp. No. 2^1/2010& coiinGctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan ' lA.App. No. l.n/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof ViilaRnPodianpu--; ' p-e8if?.9 \j' and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NH-3 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarlcaSub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Biiwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned;counsel for the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquiredin the year 1984;for developmentofDwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Ili Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks'.sizraslm'd^to highlight that the 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 potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite oi" Notificationof 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 entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notificationof24^" October,1994.

¶9It was argued with mulch vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama ly\,App. No. liyS/i'-OOS& connGclndAppealsofVillage Bharthal; !AApp.,No.291/7.010&corinecludAppealsof VillaRc;Bijwasan ! l..A.App.No. III/MIO&conneclodAppealsof Village!Pochanpur Page9of 23 'V : i ReddiA Ors. LandAcquisition.Officer,Hyderabad& Ors, {\995) 2 see 305, which has beenjconsideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. St,ateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged . keeping in view the developmentin the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited;to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot mean thatthereis no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale? Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegaUydone 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 Anja.mMolu Dessai vs. State ofGoa andAm\, (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe market price of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale;exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants aie the comparable•sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe •• marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market v^lue of the acquired land was sought by Mi.R.Cjodara,learned counsel fpr the appellantson the basis of the L& DO rates tixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the iGovernmentfor allotment of alternate plots in the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determination,of its market value is I.A.App.iMo.1195/2008&connpctedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' : ' ' LA.App. Mo. 294/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' LA.App Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur '; • • Page 10 o(29 V , • sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalldia or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka jPhase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to-above. I

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of.LA. App. No. 295/2009has; assailedthe impugnedjudgment on the following grounds:- : M a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the • respondent about thq AM>ard No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being fI.aM>ed in the course of the 'i proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. •;(Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated : ''

7.7.2007) I I . . 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 thah 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the, Land. Acquisition Act, 1894 M'as issued. \ c) Valuing the land on, the basis of the letter dated .11.9.2001 issued by the GovernmentofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions includingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in Sangunthalaversus tcihsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. I I , d) Ignores the evidence \and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining 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 Fakird Patil versus Special Land ;• Acquisition Officer, Ciyil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme CouT;t has specifically held that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate should,not he disregardedin LA.App, No. ll:).'i/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageliharlhal •; LA.App.'No. ?!M/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan ; LA.App. ISjo. .1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 1 , . \J , ; . • • . . ' I case the average sale'.price is lower. Further inAnjana Molu Dessai vj'. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has qlso held that the. highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of ' • sales transactions '.should be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon 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 ignoringthe material M-'hich indicatethat the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in BlockA and ^13,36,000 in BlockB in violation ; ' of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v.S'. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •refused to return an \actualfinding on the issue No.1 •I • framed on 27.2.2007. I g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Miinicipal 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 Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential commercial and other permissibleuses. It is\alsopertinentto mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"' amendment' of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f. .1.6.1993.IX A, by virtue of which the '.Municipal Corporation. Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, M>as • • deemeda municipalarea a.nd the municipalCounsellor v^^as elected from, there.. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. \ h) Refused to apply the\ law laid down in AIR. Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir -Singh and Anr v^. Union of India and refused to consider thefact that the development in the area has a direct \effect on the price that a willing purchaser yvouldpayfor. the.stibject land.

i) Ignored the fact thM Respondent No. .2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2Q08 & connr.cted Appeals of Village Sharthal • LA.App. No. 294/7.010&connecloid.'\ppealsofVillageBijwa.san ' LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur1 I • hi'!-- auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concludedthat the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. j) The valuation of the iubject land 'is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 ,' : for similarly situated land. i k) Does not take into accountthe possibilityof change of the use of the land although the land, yjas acquired for ' • : development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhgol Siras and Bhartha.1 was change^d and these areas ceased to be agriculturaland came^ now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. ' I I) Ignored Notificationsdated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 \ , although they cleajdy establish the commercial potentialityof the said^land. In Sangunthala v, Tahsildar I•• ~

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held, that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got buildingpotentiality to be used for buildingpurposes', in immediate or in near future needs to be considered, m.) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion \ofthe land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse 'as housesites in the nearfuture. "

¶13In the brief synopsis byiVed Pal and others of LA. App. No. I 347/2009,the factual detailshai'e been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treaited at par with the co-appellantsof the other,appeals in these bunch of appeals. ' .

¶14Supplementingthe aforesidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants, it was urged by Mr.A'naridYadav, Advocate that the effect of I I

1./^'.App.Mo. ,1195/2008& connected Appealsof Village Bharthal I • I.A.App. Mo. 294/2010& conncctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan \ •I.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur | Pagel3of29 urbanization of tiie lands in tjiie Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapll Mehra (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 Lo determine the market value :of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are'comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals. :

¶15Arguing the cross-objectionsfiled bythe Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894,'a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but'the s'ame cannot be taken as relevant evidence for determination of the market value unless and until the same is I properly connected with the |land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and otl;ier 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 Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired|lands have been illegally rejected by the ReferenceCourt and while placingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jas La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62;) DRJ 227, Satpai &. Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APR No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar w:. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannQt be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing'in evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008 & connp.ctKdAppealsof Village Bharthali IA.App. No. ?,9'l/2010&connectedAppeaLsofVillaijeBijwasan i IA.App. No. 1U/?.010&connectedAppealsofVillaBOPochanpur V; and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeof the usual prevalenttrend in the marketwouldpay such a higherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objectqr that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DeterminedRates cannot be:countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai :(supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBench ofthis Court in SushUKumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialitydf 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 minimum indicativeprice of the agriculturalland by the Governmentas I on 1" April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per annum, iiiarket value of the acquired lands has been erroneously deteimined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra.) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the price ofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10%) per annum and. thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. '' ''

¶17Alter consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon record and the decisionscited,what emergesis that the true marketvalue of the compaiableland is the pricepaid by Vv'illingpurchaserto awilling LA,,App, No. 1195/2008&connnctnclAppealsof VillageBharthal ; LA.'App: No. 291/2010&connectadAppealsofVillage Bijwasan ' I.A.A'pp.iMo. 111/2010&connecUidAppealsof VillagePochiinpur: PapGl5nf29 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 Dass ra. State of Haiyana S. Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(ij the situation of the. acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind,of importance or because of its explosive population; I

(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residentAal, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; I

(Hi) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;

(iv) absence ofstatutory impediments or the likefor using the acquired landfor building purpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired, land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which m.ay becom.e available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and. t

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify afew. " \

¶18Thepotentialityof land fcir the purpose,of developmentas also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said • purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for 1A.Aod. No. .119,'j/2008& connected Appeals of Village Bharlhal ! LA.App. Mo. ?.!)4/:^010& connecled Appeals of Village BIjwasan \ ' ' , LA.App. No. .1.11/2010& connecledAppeal.^ofVillagePochanpur I Pap,n 16of29 ^ i •' , ' . which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent • , I events to some extent. It has been so obsei-ved by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra).While reiteratingthe relevantfactors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Aima Singh (supra)that the-!exemplarsof small pieces of land relied 'i : upon by the appellantscould not be a groundto discardthem especially i when exemplarsof largepiecesioflandwere not available. '\ '

¶19Aforesaiddictum standsjreiteratedby the Apex Court in Special I•; Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC I ' ! I ' ;

¶714The legal propositionwhich emergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalf of the appellants is ;that where there is no basic difference f I either in location, situation or; potentiality of the villages, which are • similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, therp is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundof^distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land. j I

¶20It is a well established.!proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awai'ded is on the claimant, l^or this proposition, the decision of the Apex CourtinKiran Tandon (Supra)can be referredto with advantage,

¶21Apex Court in Valliyamnial (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 Molu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as linder:- lA.App. No. 11.35/2008& canricctRdAppealsof Village Bharthal 1 (A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagfiBijwasan '< LA,App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagoPochanpur • , vi ' • I t "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the : highestofthe exemplars,jwhich is a honafide transaction, ' will he considered. Where however there are several sales ; • ofsimilarlandswhosepricesrange in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the marketprice. But M'here the values disclosedin respect of ' two sales are m.arkedly it can only lead to an '{ ! inferencethat they are with referenceto dissimilarlands or : that the lower value sale\is on account of under-valnation or other price depressing reasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot he resorted to.. " \ • i ' ! . I . I •

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations li pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made I I , • ' 'I by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as • . follows:- i "It is well settled thdf genuine and hona fide sale transactions in respect of the land, under acquisition or in its absence the honafide 'sale transactions proxim.ateto the point' of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken pldpe 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 normal marketconditionsare the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principlesto determinetlje marketvalue of tlie acquiredlands as ^ . ' reiteratedby the Apex Court in; Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:-: t I "Primarily, the increase]in land prices depends on four factors - situation of thd, land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the dem.aiid for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and grad.ua.l,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps: I LA,App. No. ] 195/2008 & contacted AppRals of Village BharUial-i.A.App No. 294/2010 & connocted Appeals of Villago Bijwasan ; LA.App, No. in/2010a connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur \ , Page 18of29 vi J I t On the Other hand, in iij]banor semi-urban areas, where the developmentis faster, inhere the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as comparedto rural ared^. In somepockets in big cities, due to rapid developmentiand high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreper year, duringthe nineties. On the otherextreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a nominalrate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is\ thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in\market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in mMrket value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum., the correspondingincreasesin rural areas wouldat 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 he adopted 'in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence Yelating to the actual increase in prices, then the increas'^to be appliedwould dependupon the same. ! i Nommlly, recourse is taken to the mode of determiningthe marketvalue by providingappropriateescalationover the ^proved.marketvalue of,nearby lands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneoussale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitiohf'; precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, thai is uptofour tofive years. Beyond thai it may be unsafe, hven if it relates to a., neighbouring land. What may be a rejiable 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 market value of a larid acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method Mnth reference to a sale or / l>...App.No. 1195/2008gi connnclcdAppealsofVillagR Bh'artha;! • 1A.Apo. No. 291/2010 & connncted Appeals cjfVillage EijwasanI lA.App. No. 11.1/2010& connected Appealsof VillagePochanpyr Page19 of 29 \j : acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from, the likelihoodofoccurrence\ofvaryingperiods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts inprices affecting the very standard of increase. " i . ,, I

¶24This Court-is mindfulofthe dictum,ofthe Apex CourtinHaiyana \ State IndustrialDevelopment'Corporation(HSIDC) (Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;Wliatwas said by the Apex CourtinHSIDC (Supra) is as under:- : "When differentcategoriesof lands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, . sav for forming of a :residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with •reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacqidredunderthe same notification."

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., Radha SM>a.miSatsang,Beas ( had purchased the agricultural;land in .Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Dj;ed,s (l.ix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l./lO)which ! are basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha Swam.iSatsang ^ Beas in respectofthe compactbilockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswas situatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of I the la.ndin the villagesin questioinis the moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds I l.A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectod Appealsof VillageBharthal ' I.A.App. No. 2S'V2010&contactedAppealsof Village Bijwasan ; LA.App. No. ,l:l..l/20]0&connGcUidAppealsof VillagePocha.npur ; ' ' Page 20 of 29 ' 'v>' i (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)lindicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 -lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale t exemplars - Sale Deeds (Ex.;PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same market price. It v/as'dependent upon the nature and situation of I the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to I each parcel of land of the^e sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds ;(Ex.PW~l/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has not been brought out as the purchaseij/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purcliaser/vendee of the 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 I these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swaini Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jiii Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj\ Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesajd decisions, the sale exemplar of Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the sam.e cannot be treated I as representative price for thei acquired lands. 27, In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to th;eir acquisition, but it has come in evidence thatthe acquiredlands were bjeingused for agriculturalpurposetill their. acquisition.Thus, it becomes^ evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevalli]:ig l.A.App. No,1.195/2008a. connected Appeals of Village Bharthai [.A.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appealsof Village Bijwasari LA.App. No. ill/2010 & connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur Page Z1 of2!) i marketprice oftiie land in queptionwould pay such a high price unless and until such purchaseis meantfor specialconsiderationand so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds (]-:x.PW-]/4 to lix.PW-1/10);have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court. •

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha(Ex.PW-1/11) i rehed upon by the appellantsis;concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof - 1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-l/ll) was situated on the National Highway 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Rx.PW-l/l 1) vendorhad soldhot onlythe land butthe structurethereon includingtube well, boring, fitting,fixture,,lane, by-lane,etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar I cannot be treated as a representativeprice for the acquired lands in I question. i , ,

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoptionofL& DO dircularrates for the developedlands and Prc-DctcrminedRates for the ialternateplots 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 I highlighted by Apex Court in ife 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:- I "12. IJowever, in either \ofthe said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality wit}], reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood IA.App, No. .11^5/2008& connectodAppnalsofVillage Bharthal | I.A.App. No. 294/;!010& conncctedAppealsof Village Bijwa.'ian | I.A.App. No. T.1.1/20.10R connected Appeals of Village Pochanpiirj or yvhether it be the deter\nination of the market value ofthe acquired land with buildingpotentiality with reference to theprice fetched bysale of buildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots \in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court 'to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedhy the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any ofthe'parties, with reference to the price which the plots could hayefetched ifsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, iyhere no evidence ofprice fetched by the sales of the.plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done[is to find out the market value of the acquired .land with i;-eference to' the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it\ was put and increase its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentiality ascertained on the basis ofevidence to be made available in tfiat regard. A small percentage increase, to be given shall not exceed 1/5th of the market value of the land found'\out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidenceofsales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicating that there was no im.me.dia.te demand, as such, for building plots even ifformed in the acquired land. " :

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and I transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand I (Supra), held that it is not safe|or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in ;determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands..Following the dictum of Lai Chand (Supra), a coordinateBdnch of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) hks excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantlor assessingthe marketvalue of lA.App^No.,11.9:i/2008&connnctRdAppealsofVillaBOBharthal j LA.App. No, 291/^0.1.0&connactcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan ' LA.App.|\Jn. 113/2010&connectedAppealsof VillaBG Pochanpur j V I ' I the undevelopedacquired lanids. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCouit has rightlynot adoptedthe DJ^Aratesfor allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsinquestion.

¶32Now what is requiredt|o be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease methodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue ofthe land in questionwhiletakingjnto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBhaijthaland othervillagesfor developmentot I Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, ' learned senior counsel for thd respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per amium is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 20|00, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor development!ofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by • the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more thanthe aforesaidescalatedpiice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Couit is unjustified. i

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ol the dictum oi the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt t progressiveincreasemethodjin assessmentof the market value ol the acquiredland'only when theigap is of 4-5 years and beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates, to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications^,i.e., ofDwarkaPhasc-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears aiid therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining themarket value by providing appiopiiate LA.App. No. 119^/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App.No. 294/2010&conncctedAppealsof VillageBIJwasan p 24 fzs I.A.App.No. Hl/2010&connectedAppealsof VlllaBePochanpur ° cscaJation over the market value of the nearb}^land of the previous years. • I

¶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 bcnch of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher I potentiality of the acquired; land over and above the market value determined by the Reference: Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra)iescalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannot be|reduced to 10%) per annum, hi this view of the m.atter,the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed. I I

¶35Now what is to be s6cn is whether adoption of Government's I minimum pricc of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12%o per annum granted by the I Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1^^ April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or 1) not. :

¶36Adoption of Governmjent's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining• to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to •• be an agriculturalland by virtue of Nofificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands; in these three villages in question to be i • urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Notification of the vcar 1994 the land I use of the acquired land had changed but that by itself'is not sufficient to IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connKclGdAppeiils of Village Bharthni l.A.App. No. ^9l/?.010 & conncclnd Appeals of VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 3U/2010 & connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur Page 25of 29 •) presume thai the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands;. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale I 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 mcrcasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid their|handson othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappelkntscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land mVillage Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance •of Village Samalldia(Ex.PW-ll/l1) without leading any evidence-to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/1i;j arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the a^uired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/jl) cannot'be treated to be sufficient j ground to giant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in vi^w of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haiyana State\IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Gpvemmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors|in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the that there is agap between what lAApp. Mo, 1195/2008&ccnnoctndAppealsof VillageBharthal i ' A.App. i-vo. 2.94/2010&connoctedAppaalfofVillaijeBijwa.an LA.App. No, m/2010& connacledAppealsof VillagePochanpLit I- ' would be expectedto be the imarket growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government's!minimumagriculturalpricehas been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands inJai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushilKumar (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 aforesa^ cases of Jai Singh I (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra). I

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in I the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural I lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. I'indingofthe ReferenceCour^ in matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and; of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 1;0() meters vide road starting from Nli"8 Irom Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City,.Part1and Part H, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquiredlandsihassomehow missed the attentionof the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands'las assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the lAApp. No. 119:1/2008& connGctcdAppealsof Village Bharlhal LA.App, No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan; LA.App. No.-111/7,010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- i "Wlaen once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildings in the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentiality and proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact th^t it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,aijid in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the mattjers ol assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treattlieni with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of I the acquired lands as there are; no special featuresto treat the acquired lands diiferentlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of.Village Bharthal and i Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra),1am inclinedtb grant 10% increaseover and above the I marketvalueofthe acquiredlaijdsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin I these matters on account of the aloresaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question. i

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding]0% increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe apijellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with. the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,.theappealsof L'^.App No. 1,1,.%/200H&connoclGdAppealsof VillageBharthal i lA.App. .No. ?.91/,'010a conrieclGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan • .I-A.App No. ,111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ! ' r r I r 3^0 28 of 29 .the appellants of Village Poqhanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these . ' (i-iUS-LiE • three villagesni questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per_>igh^for the • ! "'"''11 Category 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per bipha for the Category 'B' lands in question. I

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, stalulorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct,, 1894 as explainedin I the judgment reported in SuHder V5. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,except for the period^^iherethere is a delay in filingthe appeal, lor which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid, "fheseappellantswouldjbeentitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof I in the aioresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar I , General ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. | January 06, 2012 m pi<b lA.App. No. 1195/2008& connnclndAppealsofVillagG Bharthal l./|,..App.No. 294/2010& corncctedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan l.A.App.ifoo.111/2010& conneclcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur si V/ * IN THE HIGH COURT O-F + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Through: Mr.B.S.Maan versus DELHI AT NEW DELHI Appellant Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.SmitaMap,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Adyocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas,Aidvocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S.^Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout!Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegimidMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin|appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshia Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharima,Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout^ Advocates UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. i •Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.Mohitrao'Jadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain,Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerba,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, • Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalShannaand Mr.Somer KiSeth, Advocates for DDA. ; CORAM: HON' BLE MR« JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORPER •

12.0l|.2012 • C.M. AppL NOo 752/2012 (For!correction). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. i Counsel appearingfor tlie appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 I v I ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis appHcationhas ah-eadybeen given-toremainingcounselfor the appellants. The typogiaphicalerrdr pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6^'^ January, 20l|2 is that in paragraphiio: 40 of the aloresaidjudgmentthe rate o;f compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per ^cre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants!Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthat^he referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph • no; 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/|2.008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out fortllwith. .m In viewot the tforesaid,!this applicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 12, 2012 ]3kb LA.App.No.1195/2008

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November . 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 + LA.APP. 1173/2008 RAM KUMAR & ORS Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, { ) ' Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhoslaand Mr.Dhananj ay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.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) 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.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI '' •J Mr.AjayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.MukeshKumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR