Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. RAJOG, PRADEEP NAND SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm "Hli' •1 [ •' h finii' * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW-DELHI judgment Reservf^dOn: August 207 7 h trinmanf-Ih ^ -r ^ : luaqment Delivered On: IQ'^^Sente^mber. PO11 LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/boii(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH T-K L. ••• Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mr.DeeiiakKhosia,Advocateand Mr.lXl.S.Negi,Advocate. Vs. UOI & ANOTHER Respondents -ri , ^ lUCI ILb Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate & Mr.Sa Nawani, njay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AN D + LA.APP. 961/: ^•Mn v"A.APP. 1001/2010 & CM ^o428g572011JbO,PP.10D7/^uj.u^ CM No.lblBl/ZOll" luO^oio, LA.APP. 1010/2010 la.app' 1036/2010&CM No.12865/2011,LA.APP 5/2011 LA APP 6/2011 & CM No.6756/20ll. W.APP 38/20li No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/201] 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. 11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP - LA.APP. 3,47/2011, LA.APP. . LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated is nq ^nnn Award No, 06/2002-2003,Viilage-BharswaJahan^Pp" rS A^ D LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatte|rs + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 164/2011,, LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP, 243/2011, LA.APP. 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP^ 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.l LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP, LA.APP. 382/2011, LA,APP. LA.APP, 399/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 (^Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 & , , •"'lage-BhalswaJahangirPurl) ADEEP NANDRAJOG local papers may be allowed Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi CO RAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PR

¶1Whether the Reporters of to see the judgrnent?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported In the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

¶1I proceed with an apolog/ to the reader by referringto a notification issued later In notification issued prior In poir 3oint of time then to a t of time; but the reason Is that the learned counsel for the land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notificationwhich was issued earlier In pointoftime.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue I estate of village BhalswaJahangirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/20108c connectedmatiers r to a notification dated

15.09 2000 issued under Section 4 of tlie Land.Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster', This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market value of the acquired a, which is equivalent to T13.82 /alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigh lakhs per acre i.e. fair market at ^13.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference" under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference.Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or fl4,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well as the-Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the Government as on 01.04.2090, notified vide Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing compensation, did not grant cippreciation for the period from

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period, of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the pri :e ?13.82 lakhs per acre.- LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat ers

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measurIng 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior by a declaration under Section 1998. ' After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 daied 12.03.2001,,, whereby he assessed fair market value of the acquired land at ^2,33,333 per .bigha which is equivalent to m.20 lakhs per acre. , • I

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The [.earned Reference Court, In the lead matter being LAC No.il lA/2008 titled Chdndrswsti Vs. Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair market value of the acquired land at m,46,670/- per acre. The difference ; in the same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. lollector adopting the land rate with effect from

1.4.1997 vide destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998and the learned Reference ^ 11% per annum for Court granting enhancement interregnum period. \

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment rr iA/ell as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmat;(ers li dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by developed plots to the square meter Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to aliot the plots Nagar @ ^4,500/- per squ material and good evicilence. Relying-on these Court by way of tiie appeals and cross objections mentioned above.

¶8On behalf of land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on following documentary evidence:-

(a) The rate notified b/ the L&DO vide notification nibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in "esldentiai commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential iand in Azadpur, which is stated to be close to village Bhala|swaJahangir Puri, was fixed at ?5830/- per square rr|eter or ?2,35,92,400.92per acre it was urged that if 50% is deducted I towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation In sum of fl,17,96,200/- per acre.

(b) The rate charged by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution No.705 dated

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby , MCD decided to allot transporters @ ?425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Pages of22 ,rn documents, learned counsel for land owners argued, that rate stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was Applicablefor the year 1976, would evidence that fair market value of developed land comes to ^17,19,857/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the development costs, fo[r undeveloped lands, fair I market value would come to ^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be ^24,76,592/-per acrel

(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on the for land owners also auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying on the brochure of DDA pertaining to the year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Purl at a price •ranging between X23.17 lakh to ^28.4 lakh, which accordingto. learned cbinsei translates to a price of ^14,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged, that suitable deduction coi^ld be effectedtherefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land,

(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 "bigha was sold @ ?32,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes to ?56,93,163/- or ^11,£6,169/- per bigha. it was vP LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmat:ers Page 6 of22 /im, /]

¶9contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, after making a reasonable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair marl<et value of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl. Another.sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to.Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- per acre was also reiied upon,

(e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied IplI (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a 'hereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^8 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangir Puri and thus was pressed in aid as" good evidence or fair market value of land in the said village as of the date of the agreement to sell i.e. 5.8.1996. I Per contra, Sh.Sanjay .Poddar learned senior counsel upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2: in village Bhalswa Jahangir of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of n,40,000 and urged that evert if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given on said value, the price as on the date of the notificationunderSection-4comesto n,94,782per bigha, and thus it was argued that since price of similarland is available in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt i;he price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmat;ers ifint, fixing tine market value of having a "vast area. Learne above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA submitted that in response counsel for the land owners 1/5 Union of India in which he h \V undeveloped agricultural land id counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Cpllector has assessed - the fair marl<et value of the land at a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference Court.

¶10It may,be noted that whan judgnient was reserved in the 19^^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition uApp.No.266/2008 titled lai 5in ah Vs. UOL&Anr. in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to arguments of learned arguments: which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response. •

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come-outin the depositionofShri Trilok Chand {HalqaPatwarf) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sfnoh as explained the topology of the area while proving the Ai<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa JahangirPurl. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated,in fhe North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadii and Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of villageJahangir Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010«& connectedmatters Page 8 of22 in V")

¶12, I may additionally notfe that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory j of Delhi, published by Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on .the eastern side of .G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NationalHighway No.l. V|illagesBadii, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, IMamoorDur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due the area was of a kind where to urbanization .was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah Vs. Union nf India 1998 fV) AD (Delhi) 45i, resettlement colony called Jah it was noted that there existed a angir Purl in the area which had sprung up during the period cf emergency i.e. the year 1975-

¶76It has to be rememberedthat the two subjectacquisitions were also for re-settlement of";lumand J.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008iai Sinah 1/?. IIOI rC

12.8.2011 had yet to be Anr. which was reserved on pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment,has since been pronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in :.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. Nortli-WestDelhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu" Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar , Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 9 of22 -constituted a W at the point of intersection where G.T.Karria! .Road i.e. NH-1 Rohtak common point;, proceeding Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be highlightedthat villageBhalswaJahangir Purl is outside the V aforesciidand as explained hereihabove and abutstowardsthe east0/ NH-l.

¶15In the,appeals relatingto the said 10 villageswhere land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notificationsissued in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/ comes to T26.75 lakhs W3A78 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected evidence to determine agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 1). and sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in suti-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two'sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3which is dated 25.3.2000, and the • sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable fair market value of the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was c -• r- - name of Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledgethe land was purchasedfor religiouspurposeand was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters "ftl. been held not to be rel fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural iands on reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" as per the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organizationstated that the organizationhad to pay the price for. the said piece of land as It was the only .plot of the requ site size suitable for the requirement,of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in. the decisions reported as 1995 (1) see.717 Land Acouisitton Officer Eluru & Ors, l/s. fsti Rohinf&Anr. (Refer|para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin fe. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale, deed which are tendered in evidenceby virtue of Section 51A of the LA.Act 1894 have, not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyerto pay a higherprice. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being Influenced by any special circumstancesor the fancy to buy a particularpieice of land. An informed bu studied the "market and area. I would be failing i Union of India had relied

20.5.2002, which was yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be f^9°od index of fair marketvalue of the lands in the do not highlight that the ^upon the sale deed dated accepted by learned ReferenceCourt pertainingto the notificationdated

27.1.2003 where-underagriculturalland Jn village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturistto an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e ?17 74 109/- per .acre as-.against th " • ^ ' T63.478 lakhs per acre e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre-for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters /I Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facle destroy each other. !

¶23Thus, apart from t he reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which 1 concur, afore-noted bove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair , : lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisitionis of such large -an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsicevidence ofthe transaction bejng the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be falling not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahlya jDeing the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (Since deceased) thru liRs Vs. UOl ^ Ore, it was highlightedthat the sale deed,therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of, its factory which had been Ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a tjancy for the said land ahd hence the price reflected, therein could not be treated as .a good evidepce of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the reasons In para a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc market value, of subjec Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. stiould be treated as th ie instant cases tine 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair marketvalue. Tlie argurrientignorestine reasoning mthe decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed on of the market value, bi therein was reduced by would be the same as wo Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative It found that if the price 1/3''^ the price arrived at uld be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters •,r^- .irTTTt, produced by the Govern ?1,37,000/- per bigha iment were giving a price of sale deed under which L&.T had purchased the land gave the price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'^ would be deducted ),600/-. .it may further be said judgment the year of nd notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995

16.11.1995 Court determined fair mari<et value as of the said dates at same sum arrived at as aforesaid i,e. ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not Ithat the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and thijS itself is intrinsicmutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."

¶16For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa jahangir Puri.

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the frorn the sum of ^3,26 highlighted that in "the sale was 1993 a Section of the Land land situated in village Bhalsw a jahangir Purl has been agreed to be transferredfor a sum'ofns lakhs per acre. The land owners, have-also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003 whereunder4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ^5,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the price, as pe owners was ^15,70,000/- per r the own showing of the land acre as on

01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters difficult to comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 vt abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is fl8 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was flB lakhs per acre and 7 to ^15.7 lakhs per acre. 1 ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph of its decision, kiarned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ned that the said price was for special considerationsand npt the price settled between an informed willing buyer and an informed wiHing seller and , without being influenced by particular land, and had thus special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 008 iaf Sinah Vs. UOI & Ann I.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence,of neither the buyer nor the seller being well-informed and theire being a special feature qua the land and

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision; 1reite

¶20As regards. auction rat situated in the Sanjay Gandh "ate the same. es of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, I do not find any substance in the argumentsof the learned counselfor the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned .ReferenceCourt containedin paragraphs29 and 30 which are premisedon the decisionof th 2SupremeCourt reportedas La! LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ; I Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) 5CC 769; Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e\/idence relating to auction rates of residential piots or fiats by IDDA.

¶21In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh 1/5. UOi & Ors.. I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Ciourt In La! Chands case, with reference to price at which ceveloped plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in jai Singh's case are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted larld sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Nareia ResidentialScheme developed by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai render this evidence as the value of land in the s

¶30It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area and Nareia Residential S 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same Der which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which most unreliable to determine jbject cases. as held even by the learned with development of Rohini Residential Scheme iheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which building potentiality would translate itself.

¶311hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the SupremeCourt in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence ^s reliable. On the issue of potentialityrelating-itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010& coiinectedmatters

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chancfs , case (supra) I • Supreme Court held that sucli raw data was meaningless was too inchoate wherefroin fair marl<et value could be crystallized.

¶23. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which ivICD allotted developed plots in Saijay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when leaSe-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to deve:loped plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed discarded with reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, 1 n colony adjoining the famous where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar') who appeared as PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008it emerges thai: village Burari is on the east of village Bhalswa jahangir Purl and indeed the plan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Choyvk from the. Tibetan Re-settlement Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparatedby 'OuterRing Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters a •f) thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessing the fair market value of the land situated cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of nad considered material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of.LA./appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled R^ibBf & Ors. Vs. Union of IndlB 6^ in village Burari, which was a dated-24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land •atm,60 id assessed the fair market value ',580.82 per acre for Category A land, no,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ^9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuantto notification dated 18.07.200^ had been assessed by me at ^9,20,568/- per acre for-CategoryAland'and ^7,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. ,.In 7^/ Sfnah'scase (supra), I had assessed the fair marketvalue of land In 10 villagesas'under;- S.No. Village Name Dat uno e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in iakhs per acre)

1.

¶2Pooth Khurd Holambi Kalan

7.8 'ft 2000 Tfinn n4.75 for Category 'A' n4.3728 for Category 'B'

¶3Bawana / .o.

7.8. 2000 ^4.75 ^4.75 for Category 'A' m.38125 for Cateqorv 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.c t .2000 ^14,835 for ,Category 'A' n4.46413 for Category 'B' LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters I !l V ' i| • ? V

¶5Narela

2.5 .2001 n6.165 , for Category 'A' n5-.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan 22 8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶1Alipur 22 8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ^6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holamipi Khurd 2,2.8.2001 ?

16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 ' n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B' •10. Sanoth

7.12.2001 fl7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 T18.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 T18.655

¶14Alipur.

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶27L.2003 n9.435 for Category 'A' ne.94.912 for Category 'B' ^18.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Kalan

27.; L.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

27." In /a/ 5/noh's case (su minimum land rates enhance to time, and found the same LA.App.No.999/2010& cojmectedmatters pra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhancedl by the Governnnentfrom time not to be the /pse dixit of the CMf f Government officers and [lad found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions cpf four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah l/s. UP! & MH, 2004 !V AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UO/. Ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005MahenJerSinah Vs. UO! &Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t various dates between the years :o the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications Issued from • time to time by the,Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricililturallands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above,bring out two very importantfacts relevant to determine tjhe growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As t4.65 lakhs per acre whi of 1,4.1997 i.e. the incre 3f 27.4.1990 minimum price was ch rose to ^10 lakhs per acre as ase is T5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054%increase in 7 years and th6 averageprice increasewould be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 yearstr is by 11.2% and thereafter by : and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of. 1.4.2001. It. shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborativeevidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gajrafs case (supra), which 1have discussed in para 49 above.

¶51^ I need to elaboratea little more with respectto the deasion in GajraJs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural-land-in village Holambi Kaian as of 15.11.1996, in paras'9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters •^fTT) the Court discussed, tjhe valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ^9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in surrounding areas including potentiality, in para onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come u|i) and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price-would come to fl0,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered,the prices notified by the Government as per policy dated

1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of T9,76[l21/-per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' iands. The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as aga that the potentiality had been Government issued Dn w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlightingthat the price was n0,03,364/- per acre. ^3' decision in McbenderSinoh's case, pertaining •ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential, strial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality istanding the^ Master Plan so ds theoretically acquiring to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Pian for, account by the Court w commercial indu agricultural land in Delhi had noted that notwit projecting and - the la of the notification with concerned, virtually no c actually grows. The c potentiality,the same hjad not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which Division Bench was , , , evelopment had.taken place in village Bawana and' Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploitedthe potential. As I have already highlightedin para 49 above there .is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market ecisions in Ga/rai's case LA.App.No;999/2010& connectedmatters A Mahender Singh's • case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 . and 1997 when prices rose by . about

16.5% per annum thereafter extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and indusjtrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evicence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, In respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in para^ 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fancjifulsale deeds, to determinefair market value, we have v/lth us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto In some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 fair market value of agricultural lands would be ^19;16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 .on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for f5,39,690/- and f70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (?5,39,690/- + f70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ^17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶28in the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than th e minimum price notified by the Government from'time to tjime; I hold that the Learned ReferenceCourt has rightly adopted the correctprincipleand has relied upon the correct,evidenceand has given the correct appreciationsby suitablyincreasingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date of the notification Issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss ail appeals and crQSj; objections,whetherfiled by the land owners or the Union of India.

¶291leave the parties to beartheir own cost. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters T—r (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-25 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1001/2010 & C.M.No.12885/2011 (cross-objection) SHEO RAJ SINGH Appellant Through; Mr.Deepak Khosia Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG